Caitlin Clark's Brand is Bigger Than the Game, And That's a Problem

The New Age of Women's Hoops

Look, I get it. Everyone's talking about women's college basketball, and yeah, a lot of it has to do with Caitlin Clark. Iowa’s games are pulling huge numbers, like that Elite Eight matchup against LSU that averaged over 12 million viewers on ESPN. That’s bigger than a lot of NBA playoff games, frankly. It's a new era, no doubt about it. But when did individual brand become more important than the team? That's what I keep asking myself.

Back in my day, we watched because of the rivalries, the gritty defense, the team play. We watched because Lisa Leslie and Cheryl Miller were battling it out, not because one player was dropping 40 and dominating every highlight reel. This year, Clark broke Pete Maravich's all-time NCAA scoring record with 3,685 points. Impressive, sure. But how many of those points came in transition or off screens designed specifically to get her a look?

Beyond the Box Score: Where's the Grit?

Thing is, the game feels different now. More finesse, less physicality. I watched South Carolina win the national championship, and credit where it's due, they're a force. Dawn Staley has built a program that emphasizes defense and rebounding, a refreshing change of pace from some of the run-and-gun offenses out there. Their championship game against Clark's Iowa squad pulled 18.9 million viewers on ABC and ESPN, a record for college basketball. But even with all that attention, you still hear more about Clark's half-court threes than South Carolina's stifling defense.

Remember when teams like Tennessee under Pat Summitt would just grind you down? They won eight national titles, often with a roster of tough, defensive-minded players. When Rebecca Lobo led UConn to an undefeated season in '95, it was about their collective strength, not just her individual scoring prowess. Clark averaged 31.6 points and 8.9 assists this past season, which is astounding, but it also paints a picture of a system built around one player. Is that truly sustainable, or just a flash in the pan fueled by social media buzz?

The Star System: Good for the Game?

Here’s the thing: everyone wants to compare Clark to Stephen Curry. And yeah, her range is incredible. She hit 139 three-pointers in her senior season alone. But Curry was surrounded by other Hall of Famers, guys who could create their own shot and play defense. When one player becomes the entire show, it almost cheapens the effort of the other four players on the court. It turns basketball into a solo act, and that's just not how I learned the game.

I worry this obsession with individual stars overshadows the team-first mentality that makes basketball great. It's like everyone forgot about the fundamentals. Passing, cutting, playing tough defense for 40 minutes. You saw some of that with LSU and Angel Reese, a player who plays with fire and passion. But even with her, the focus often shifted to her personality or her social media presence rather than her interior defense or rebounding numbers. Reese averaged 13.4 rebounds per game this season, a legitimate force on the glass.

I predict that while individual stars will continue to pull big numbers, the teams that ultimately win championships will be the ones that play old-school, team-oriented basketball, the kind that prioritizes defense and unselfish play over highlight reels.