Should Devils spend the money?

Duke University is in an awkward situation as Texas attempts to hire Blue Devils women's basketball coach Gail Goestenkors.

On one hand, Duke can't afford to lose Goestenkors, 44. She's among the top coaches and has directed Duke teams to almost 400 wins over 15 seasons.

On the other hand, the school may not be able to justify the money required to keep her.

At stake in the Goestenkors sweepstakes is something more fascinating than where she will coach next season. The larger issue goes to the affordability of competition.

In a sport with little or no prospects for financial reward, Texas is forcing Duke to determine how much money it is willing to spend to keep a name-brand coach.

Duke won't be the last school to face the dilemma. This is the outset of an unusual feeding frenzy.

Women's college basketball gradually has become a rare athletic species in that it has substantial regional and national visibility but game attendance is spotty, even in the NCAA regional finals.

Television ratings are low. And there's no viable evidence that either trend will change in the near future, primarily because the women compete with the more entrenched men's division.

The women may target a different audience, but basketball fans ultimately are basketball fans. Regardless of the demographics, it's a limited universe that largely depends on the fans' allegiances to certain schools. There are only so many spectator eyes out there to be claimed.

Dozens of colleges, nonetheless, want to have fully funded women's teams capable of winning titles, but only two or so of these programs turn a profit at a time when some of the top coaches are getting paid $300,000 to $800,000 -- or more annually.

In one sense, women's basketball is no different from almost all college sports teams. Other than football and men's basketball, there are few financial winners at any level of NCAA competition.

But women's basketball has emerged as the top priority at most schools among non-revenue sports. There's an increasing appetite for success despite the cost.

For the schools with the thickest wallets and most aggressive athletic aspirations -- Texas for one -- escalating salaries are not a concern.

Other schools have the choice of keeping pace in the arms race or play (and pay) in their own comfort zone.

Duke has plenty of money, of course. If Texas is offering Goestenkors $1 million per year, Duke could match that. But if the deciding factor for the coach is money and money alone, there will come a point where Texas refuses to be the low bidder. There's money and then there's mad money. Texas has more mad money for athletics than almost any college in the country. It doesn't mean that Duke, with a new coach, will cease to be a top-10 program. After all, the Carolina men reached the Final Four in two of the three seasons following Dean Smith's retirement.

But the landscape for women's basketball coaches is about to quickly change as a result of Goestenkors' decision.

If she doesn't take the job, the next target for the Longhorns will be someone just as successful and the offer will be just as much. Or more.

The marketplace dynamics we've seen during the past few years in men's basketball and football has now expanded to include women's basketball. The price tag on big-name coaches is about to erupt.

That's good for the coaches but bad for competition.

When money dictates success, the rich rarely fail. There may be a Marist or a Bowling Green to break through to the NCAA third or fourth round occasionally, just as there was a George Mason last season in the men's tournament and a Boise State this past season in football.

But it won't happen often.