In what’s becoming an annual pre-Final Four media routine, Bloomberg has published what I regard as the most essential piece about the finances, marketing and outlook for big-time women’s college basketball that’s been written in some time.

But unlike some previous treatment of the same issue — such as this very good Big 12-oriented account by The Austin American-Statesman before last year’s Women’s Final Four in San Antonio — Bloomberg reporter Curtis Eichelberger’s examination goes beyond an emphasis on money and revenues and explores the realities facing those trying to broaden the sport’s appeal.

It’s an effort that’s obviously tied to money, but also illustrates the difficulties that the NCAA, conferences and various college athletic departments have faced in expanding its base audience.

Even Connecticut, which is gunning for its eighth NCAA championship this weekend at Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis and has been the only women’s program to turn in a regular profit, is awash in red ink. Top programs are budgeted typically around $2 million to $4 million, with coaches like UConn’s Geno Auriemma and Pat Summitt of Tennessee pulling down low seven-figure salary packages.

A few excerpts that I think are worth keeping in mind, starting with comments from former NCAA women’s basketball committee chairwoman and Atlantic 10 commissioner Bernadette McGlade, a strong advocate for pushing the women’s game in the direction of profitability:

“There is intrinsic value in being able to carry your own weight. For the amount of resources going into intercollegiate women’s basketball, there’s going to be a time where there has to be a rational decision of, is it worth it? . . . It makes a difference whether you make money. It gives you a seat at the table where the decisions are made.”

Yet despite regular marketing and attendance initiatives, that scenario may not not realistic. Ohio State senior associate athletics director Ben Jay:

“I don’t foresee women’s basketball breaking even. We’d love it to. We are marketing the brand and pushing the program and all the fan experience elements. But we don’t see women’s basketball subsidizing other sports.”

The most important issue facing the women’s game from an exposure standpoint may be renewing the NCAA women’s basketball television package. The current 11-year, $163 million deal with ESPN, which includes a number of men’s and women’s non-revenue sports, expires at the end of the 2011-12 season. McGlade is in favor of pulling the women’s basketball component away from the other sports, Eichelberger reports, “no matter how small, and use that as a baseline to set new goals for developing the women’s television product.”

I certainly agree with that. Assessing the true media value of that product is a necessary step away from the current piggy-backing of women’s games that are tied to conference packages. I’ve had a senior administrator at a major conference tell me that it doesn’t place a financial value on its women’s package that is lumped in its all-sports contract. This individual wouldn’t speculate on what that dollar figure might be.

It’s time for this to change, and for the sport’s advocates to embrace what I’ve referred to as women’s hoops 3.0:

“This sport, and others women play, needs to attract more fans and more corporate and media support in order to gain a more durable foothold in a sports world still feeling the effects of the recession. Those with a professional stake in the advancement of women’s basketball recognize that those gains are no longer possible through political and social activism alone.

“The time in which we’re living now — with a concerted effort underway to ensure that women’s hoops, and women’s sports, will succeed as businesses — will help determine whether those young women will be able to live out their dreams.”

Perhaps I’m far too obsessive about this, and I know I will enjoy the games once they finally get underway Sunday night. I love the matchups that are on tap with Stanford vs. Texas A & M and UConn vs. Notre Dame. The splendid Maya Moore will conclude one of the greatest college basketball careers ever this weekend, with Stanford’s veteran squad, a spunky bunch of Aggies getting here for the first time and the fine young Irish point guard Skylar Diggins also featuring.

But the constant backdrop of social and cultural issues is bearing out my obsession. On Sunday morning’s “Outside the Lines” program on ESPN, the topic won’t be the basketball, or anything I’ve addressed here but the issue of transgender athletes. ESPN got Kye Allums, who is a male-identified member of the George Washington women’s team, to sit for an interview. I’ve been asked to appear on a panel discussion on the same program because of what I posted here last fall.

There’s nothing really new to report here, and I question OTL’s choice of subject matter on the same day of the biggest weekend in women’s college basketball, and that’s a point I’ll need to make on the air.

Especially when trying to bring the women’s game to new audiences remains so vexing, even for girls who already play. Says Rick Risinger, the Indianapolis-area high school coach of current UConn starter Kelly Faris:

“Boys have a tendency to watch a lot of basketball, whereas girls don’t tend to watch as much. The Final Four will open up and expose girls to basketball at a high level. This could set off a spark in some girls.”

The NFL season starts tonight with the usual bouquet of roses arranged and delivered by the usual suspects. Yahoo’s Michael Silver sorts through the issues should the thrill be gone and we’ve got a full-blown labor dispute dominating the headlines in just a few short months.

A year into their extremely lucrative relationship, the SEC and ESPN want to kick it up a few more notches.

Good reporting here by John Solomon of the Birmingham News.

• A friend of mine and a very talented writer visited South Africa a year ago to write about a soccer team that was getting headlines, but for all the wrong reasons. The story by John Turnbull of The Global Game about an openly lesbian side has resonated during the World Cup.

Turnbull, who prefers watching women play the game, was recently interviewed by the CBC and explained the reasons for his approach to following soccer from a cultural perspective, especially as it relates to gender:

“There always seems more at stake when women play. They are doing it for love. There isn’t much money for women’s players. It’s a journeyman existence, sometimes going against the wishes of your family and friends. A lot of things are pushing against you.

“It’s always interesting to look at culture in terms of gender and women’s access to sport is sometimes a good indicator of how much equality a society gives its women.”

• Jason Fry of the National Sports Journalism Center (and an avid New York Mets fan and blogger) on the growth of the SB Nation conglomerate as  it launches blog networks in 20 cities and what it means for those sportswriters still working for newspapers:

“Much as I wish it were otherwise, these are anxious times — at best — to be a sportswriter for a newspaper, with SB Nation just the latest competitor to worry about. But if you’re a fan who likes to read, this is a golden age, marked by an explosion of compelling, entertaining stories from pressboxes and couches alike. And if there’s a limit to fans’ hunger for that content, we sure haven’t seen it yet. I worry about the future of newspapers, but I don’t worry about the future of sportswriting.”

•  More Intelligent Life, a culture magazine published by The Economist, with a long treatise on how global sports got so big, initially citing the spread of the British empire, and what has evolved since Brittainia no longer rules its own games:

“Big business used to have little to do with sport. Football clubs were owned by rich individuals who tended to be self-made men, from the world of property or used cars, rather than bosses of multinational companies. Rugby and cricket clubs, and German football clubs, were owned by their members and run by committees. Shirts carried no lettering apart from badges and a discreet manufacturer’s logo; business brands were confined to the hoardings round the side of the pitch.

“Within a generation, nearly all that has changed. Arsenal’s stadium is called the Emirates, after the airline that sponsors the team. Manchester United have just come to the end of a £56m four-year shirt-sponsorship deal with AIG; when AIG fell apart in 2008, United moved smoothly on to Aon, who will pay £80m for the next four years. The England cricket team’s shirts carry three lions and one mobile-phone company. National teams have their designated suppliers, their “official beer” and even ‘official cider.’ Tennis players and racing drivers have become human billboards, festooned with branding.”

Mondays for me are a treat — I know, Mondays.

But the first thing I try to get to on Monday morning is reading through the latest edition of Sports Business Journal (subscription). What caught my eye today above all is the big-business realism of new NCAA chief executive Mark Emmert, who towed the organization’s party line about how the money (especially with the extended CBS/Turner deal for the men’s basketball tournament) is needed to pay for just about every other sport:

“If put in the right context, you can weave athletics into the overall educational experience, and make it part of the social and cultural experience, as well. You shouldn’t separate the cost of athletics from everything else. It’s an integral part of the institution.”

• I haven’t been posting on Twitter much in recent days, but instead have been busy reorganizing my lists to make better use of my time on what I regard as my own highly customized wire service. One of the new lists is devoted to sports business and media, and there’s a good compilation of influential people and organizations I highly value.

• Legendary film critic Roger Ebert writes that he believes this is “the golden age of movie criticism,” and profiles some of his fellow critics who are doing their work online:

“Film criticism is still a profession, but it’s no longer an occupation. You can’t make any money at it. This provides an opportunity for those who care about movies and enjoy expressing themselves. Anyone with access to a computer need only to use free blogware and set up in business.”