Your point about stars - on the women's side - being able to stay and grow while in college is I think important. I want to suggest a couple other things that might also help account for the growing popularity of the women's game.
First, the level of play has gotten much, much, much better. It used to be painful to watch women's basketball. There, I said it. It was objectively terrible. And while I'm sure a women's team would get waxed by a men's team of similar, or even younger age, what is important is that the game is now watchable in a way that it simply wasn't 20 years ago. It's simple. We know that the best female tennis players can't play at all with the top men, and we know that Lexi Thompson can't shoot par from the men's tips. It doesn't matter. They are accomplished athletes playing at a high level. Women's golf and tennis are fun to watch. Women's hoops used to be dreadful, and now it's not. That's a win for Title IX. Good job, everyone.
Second, Clark is kind of pretty, and seems like a very personable and happy sort. That matters.
I’d add that Clark bombing threes from 30 feet out doesn’t look any different than Curry doing the same, and so it’s a skill that’s easy for the casual to appreciate.
Yup. We see third rate sport exploding when it found a once a generation white superstar who also projects midwestern white heterosexual normalcy—mixed with a little bit of traditional aggressive competitiveness— and who shuts up and dribbles. Not only does this person stand out because those traits are unique in that environment, but she plays a sport with domineering coaches, and lots of continuity. And finally luck gave her teammates who are out of Hoosiers and antagonists who fit the Apollo Creed/Clubber Lang archetype.
And the media types hate this and scream that the lesson to take is that even more money should be invested in a money losing, aggressively sub-altern, radically politically progressive leagues whose players should be further empowered…
Anyway, a few note scattered thoughts—
— college sports has a built in fanbase because of people’s attachment to colleges. It can be forgiving of a low quality product. See also Texas High School Football.
— men’s basketball does not just struggle from a lack of continuity, the product itself is also pretty bad and bordering on the unwatchable. So the fact that women’s basketball is awful skill wise matters less because the men suck too (and do not benefit from paternalistic lower expectations). And unlike college football, lower skill level does not open up the game in fun ways (300 yard rushing days, long touchdowns, etc…) but leads to sloppy dribbling and ugly missed floaters
—Anyway, I’d wager the ratings will crash next year. (Something like 8 out of 10 of the best selling UFC pay per views are McGregor fights…). There will probably be articles about how the ratings crash is an indictment of fans and how sports fans should be ashamed for not worshipping JuJu Watkins.
These are all great points. The "plot" in particular was so easy to follow with Iowa vs LSU/South Carolina. Even if you didn't watch a minute before those games you understand them inutatively
The collegiate men should stay 3 years or go straight to the pros just like baseball & (generally) football. Thats partly why collegiate football is still beloved & college baseball is growing
That would be the death of college basketball. College basketball does not feel the same because we know the best players are not stepping on a college campus.
We can't overlook the fact that Caitlin is a GREAT (heavy emphasis on great) White American basketball player in the discourse of why those ratings took off. I agree with all the points made by Ethan but the white vs. black component absolutely helped ratings. To be clear, I don't say this with any disdain. For the sake of the men's college basketball and the NBA I hope Cooper Flagg is a polarizing phenom at Duke next year and becomes the first hated/beloved Duke star since.... JJ Redick?
Great article. But the note about soccer is a little off; that Man U-Liverpool regular season match is already rating better than most regular season NBA games. When it comes to one-off championships with transcendent stars, the 2022 WC Final drew 26 million viewers in the US. You can make a pretty persuasive case that "soccer" broadly construed is as popular in the US as anything other than football.
Liverpool v Man City a few weeks ago got (from a quick google) 1.8m viewers as well, same time (Sunday, 10.30am east coast, 7.30am west coast), think Liverpool v arsenal got 2m around Christmas on a Saturday lunchtime on the east coast - these are at a far worse time than the NBA games yet can outrate a good number of NBA games, granted Sheffield United v Burnley won’t get those numbers but should be a worry for the NBA if the bigger EPL games can outrate theirs, I know there’s the argument against the NBA is too many foreign players but the only US ones who’ve been top players in their positions in the EPL were keepers, so they don’t have that excuse
One thing I want to say in terms of Americans liking Americans is that it's not really nationality as much as name and accent. Americans like players with American-ish names. Zach Edey is viewed as American and Domantas Sabonis as foreign despite the fact that the foreigner is an American born in Portland and the American is 100% Canadian.
The guy on BlueSky who replied to McManus by blaming Bill Simmons' offhand jokes in columns most people don't read as the primary reason womens' basketball wasn't more popular for two decades is insane and pathetic. The apotheosis of Freddie DeBoer's mewling white guy who needs to show everyone he's not "THAT TYPE" of white guy.
Maybe there's something to this but I think it's a very small part of the story. There are two different questions here: 1) why is college basketball more popular than the WNBA all the time. 2) Why is this year particularly popular?
The answer to two is easy: Caitlin Clark is a generational talent. Nothing more than that.
The answer to one is a little more complex. Part of it is that colleges have a built-in fan base whereas the WNBA doesn't. But I think a more important and related aspect is that people think college basketball is sweet and adorable and it is nice that some young girls are playing a game and giving their all. The WNBA takes that nice story and almost makes it sad. It's like the 14-year-old Tetris champion who decides to become a professional Tetris player. Or, if you want a male sports analogy, a college lacrosse player going pro. It was cute when it was a hobby. But spending all your time playing a game that is pretty low quality is a little depressing and not something people want to watch or even think about. The men's game doesn't have this problem because true excellence is a respectable pursuit and they're going to be millionaires but professional mediocrity just becomes kind of weird and not something people want to sit on their couch and enjoy. I think most fans of women's college basketball like the fact that these girls will go and get a normal job and live normal lives. If anything, the idea that some of them will decide to join the WNBA hurts the product. We all wanted a happy ending.
A part of me can't help but think, Gigi Bryant would've turned 18 in a few weeks. If she wound up having the skill and talent, it makes you wonder where she would've taken this recent surge of popularity in women's college basketball. Just wasn't meant to be. RIP
College football, even though the players change, has such an extensive history that even in the transfer portal/realignment era there's enough continuity that each year feels like you're watching a new season in a long-running show that you watched as a kid and never grew out of. That nostalgia matters. When I watch men's college basketball it feels like I'm watching one of those four- or six-episode "limited series" on Netflix: it might be entertaining, even thrilling at times, but there was nothing that preceded it and I know that it won't continue (or if it does, it will be in massively altered form) beyond the immediate future. The continuity and consistency of the womens game lets me follow players over the long term and feel more invested in the storylines and outcomes.
I don't know if there's a solution for this, or if there needs to be one, but there's definitely a tangible difference.
College football has two huge advantages over college basketball: the rosters are way bigger, and football players are obligated to wait three years to go pro.
I think there's a solution, but it sort of depends on the NBA deciding for some reason that it's in their interest to save college basketball. They could adopt the hockey draft rules, so that teams could acquire the rights to a player but let him keep playing in college until he graduates.
I thought about the roster difference too; even with the portal the % of turnover in football is way lower so there are at least some players you can follow over multiple seasons.
And you’re right, I’m not sure how this gets fixed without the incentives somehow changing.
This reminds me of why I enjoyed the University of Michigan basketball team under John Beilein - they tended to get sub-five star athletes who weren't talented enough to jump to the NBA after their freshman year, so you would get at least 2, often 3 or 4 years out of the players. They could compete with the more talented teams because of continuity. Under Juwan Howard, they got more 5 star recruits, and had some exciting success earlier on, but even before things fell apart otherwise, it was harder to be invested.
Also helped that Beilein is one the best ten or so coaches over the last 25 years! As an Illini who's been trained since birth to always hate Michigan because of '89, it hurt that his teams were so good and so much fun to watch.
Call me crazy, but I think Clark’s style of play is the primary reason for her stardom. She’s doing stuff most collegiate men’s cannot do by draining 30 footers. The behind the back cross-over into a step back three is an incredible difficult shot no matter the playing level.
Agree with most all of the above, but I'd throw in that the strength of the college brands is a big factor, even for those who don't have a rooting interest for their alma mater.
What's stronger, UCONN or the Indiana Fever? Iowa or the Las Vegas Aces? Duke or the Charlotte Hornets?
Familiar faces are great when they stay in the same jersey. But it's also good for the jersey to be familiar to the public. I'd guess that college brands just have an easier time being perceived as 'authentic' than a lot of NBA teams, and all WNBA teams.
People constantly miss this in debates about NIL, paying players, etc. The schools themselves provide a huge proportion of the value to college football and basketball, let alone all the Olympic sports.
If Caitlin Clark played for UConn, Stanford, or any other traditional woman's power, she would not have crossed over into the mainstream. Playing at a non blue blood helped build the "underdog" narrative. BTW, two weeks ago, City (3rd place) vs Arsenal (2nd place) had 5 million viewers (English and Spanish) for a game that started at 9 am pst.
Joe Lacob would sacrifice a son to get his new WNBA teams inaugural season moved up a year and get Clark to the Bay. Theyd instantly be the 3rd team in this market
Your point about stars - on the women's side - being able to stay and grow while in college is I think important. I want to suggest a couple other things that might also help account for the growing popularity of the women's game.
First, the level of play has gotten much, much, much better. It used to be painful to watch women's basketball. There, I said it. It was objectively terrible. And while I'm sure a women's team would get waxed by a men's team of similar, or even younger age, what is important is that the game is now watchable in a way that it simply wasn't 20 years ago. It's simple. We know that the best female tennis players can't play at all with the top men, and we know that Lexi Thompson can't shoot par from the men's tips. It doesn't matter. They are accomplished athletes playing at a high level. Women's golf and tennis are fun to watch. Women's hoops used to be dreadful, and now it's not. That's a win for Title IX. Good job, everyone.
Second, Clark is kind of pretty, and seems like a very personable and happy sort. That matters.
I’d add that Clark bombing threes from 30 feet out doesn’t look any different than Curry doing the same, and so it’s a skill that’s easy for the casual to appreciate.
Yup. We see third rate sport exploding when it found a once a generation white superstar who also projects midwestern white heterosexual normalcy—mixed with a little bit of traditional aggressive competitiveness— and who shuts up and dribbles. Not only does this person stand out because those traits are unique in that environment, but she plays a sport with domineering coaches, and lots of continuity. And finally luck gave her teammates who are out of Hoosiers and antagonists who fit the Apollo Creed/Clubber Lang archetype.
And the media types hate this and scream that the lesson to take is that even more money should be invested in a money losing, aggressively sub-altern, radically politically progressive leagues whose players should be further empowered…
Anyway, a few note scattered thoughts—
— college sports has a built in fanbase because of people’s attachment to colleges. It can be forgiving of a low quality product. See also Texas High School Football.
— men’s basketball does not just struggle from a lack of continuity, the product itself is also pretty bad and bordering on the unwatchable. So the fact that women’s basketball is awful skill wise matters less because the men suck too (and do not benefit from paternalistic lower expectations). And unlike college football, lower skill level does not open up the game in fun ways (300 yard rushing days, long touchdowns, etc…) but leads to sloppy dribbling and ugly missed floaters
—Anyway, I’d wager the ratings will crash next year. (Something like 8 out of 10 of the best selling UFC pay per views are McGregor fights…). There will probably be articles about how the ratings crash is an indictment of fans and how sports fans should be ashamed for not worshipping JuJu Watkins.
These are all great points. The "plot" in particular was so easy to follow with Iowa vs LSU/South Carolina. Even if you didn't watch a minute before those games you understand them inutatively
Yup. The plot just makes certain people uncomfortable and they are afraid that if they give the plot credit they’ll get more of it.
The collegiate men should stay 3 years or go straight to the pros just like baseball & (generally) football. Thats partly why collegiate football is still beloved & college baseball is growing
That would be the death of college basketball. College basketball does not feel the same because we know the best players are not stepping on a college campus.
quite the opposite. you gain familiarity with the players. this is how college baseball operates
We can't overlook the fact that Caitlin is a GREAT (heavy emphasis on great) White American basketball player in the discourse of why those ratings took off. I agree with all the points made by Ethan but the white vs. black component absolutely helped ratings. To be clear, I don't say this with any disdain. For the sake of the men's college basketball and the NBA I hope Cooper Flagg is a polarizing phenom at Duke next year and becomes the first hated/beloved Duke star since.... JJ Redick?
Great article. But the note about soccer is a little off; that Man U-Liverpool regular season match is already rating better than most regular season NBA games. When it comes to one-off championships with transcendent stars, the 2022 WC Final drew 26 million viewers in the US. You can make a pretty persuasive case that "soccer" broadly construed is as popular in the US as anything other than football.
Liverpool v Man City a few weeks ago got (from a quick google) 1.8m viewers as well, same time (Sunday, 10.30am east coast, 7.30am west coast), think Liverpool v arsenal got 2m around Christmas on a Saturday lunchtime on the east coast - these are at a far worse time than the NBA games yet can outrate a good number of NBA games, granted Sheffield United v Burnley won’t get those numbers but should be a worry for the NBA if the bigger EPL games can outrate theirs, I know there’s the argument against the NBA is too many foreign players but the only US ones who’ve been top players in their positions in the EPL were keepers, so they don’t have that excuse
One thing I want to say in terms of Americans liking Americans is that it's not really nationality as much as name and accent. Americans like players with American-ish names. Zach Edey is viewed as American and Domantas Sabonis as foreign despite the fact that the foreigner is an American born in Portland and the American is 100% Canadian.
Ethan early 2000s thinking ManU still a big team
Worldwide viewers for the Liverpool man United game is more than the Super Bowl, around 600m people!
I know. Just trolling ManUre fans
The guy on BlueSky who replied to McManus by blaming Bill Simmons' offhand jokes in columns most people don't read as the primary reason womens' basketball wasn't more popular for two decades is insane and pathetic. The apotheosis of Freddie DeBoer's mewling white guy who needs to show everyone he's not "THAT TYPE" of white guy.
Maybe there's something to this but I think it's a very small part of the story. There are two different questions here: 1) why is college basketball more popular than the WNBA all the time. 2) Why is this year particularly popular?
The answer to two is easy: Caitlin Clark is a generational talent. Nothing more than that.
The answer to one is a little more complex. Part of it is that colleges have a built-in fan base whereas the WNBA doesn't. But I think a more important and related aspect is that people think college basketball is sweet and adorable and it is nice that some young girls are playing a game and giving their all. The WNBA takes that nice story and almost makes it sad. It's like the 14-year-old Tetris champion who decides to become a professional Tetris player. Or, if you want a male sports analogy, a college lacrosse player going pro. It was cute when it was a hobby. But spending all your time playing a game that is pretty low quality is a little depressing and not something people want to watch or even think about. The men's game doesn't have this problem because true excellence is a respectable pursuit and they're going to be millionaires but professional mediocrity just becomes kind of weird and not something people want to sit on their couch and enjoy. I think most fans of women's college basketball like the fact that these girls will go and get a normal job and live normal lives. If anything, the idea that some of them will decide to join the WNBA hurts the product. We all wanted a happy ending.
A part of me can't help but think, Gigi Bryant would've turned 18 in a few weeks. If she wound up having the skill and talent, it makes you wonder where she would've taken this recent surge of popularity in women's college basketball. Just wasn't meant to be. RIP
College football, even though the players change, has such an extensive history that even in the transfer portal/realignment era there's enough continuity that each year feels like you're watching a new season in a long-running show that you watched as a kid and never grew out of. That nostalgia matters. When I watch men's college basketball it feels like I'm watching one of those four- or six-episode "limited series" on Netflix: it might be entertaining, even thrilling at times, but there was nothing that preceded it and I know that it won't continue (or if it does, it will be in massively altered form) beyond the immediate future. The continuity and consistency of the womens game lets me follow players over the long term and feel more invested in the storylines and outcomes.
I don't know if there's a solution for this, or if there needs to be one, but there's definitely a tangible difference.
College football has two huge advantages over college basketball: the rosters are way bigger, and football players are obligated to wait three years to go pro.
I think there's a solution, but it sort of depends on the NBA deciding for some reason that it's in their interest to save college basketball. They could adopt the hockey draft rules, so that teams could acquire the rights to a player but let him keep playing in college until he graduates.
I thought about the roster difference too; even with the portal the % of turnover in football is way lower so there are at least some players you can follow over multiple seasons.
And you’re right, I’m not sure how this gets fixed without the incentives somehow changing.
This reminds me of why I enjoyed the University of Michigan basketball team under John Beilein - they tended to get sub-five star athletes who weren't talented enough to jump to the NBA after their freshman year, so you would get at least 2, often 3 or 4 years out of the players. They could compete with the more talented teams because of continuity. Under Juwan Howard, they got more 5 star recruits, and had some exciting success earlier on, but even before things fell apart otherwise, it was harder to be invested.
Also helped that Beilein is one the best ten or so coaches over the last 25 years! As an Illini who's been trained since birth to always hate Michigan because of '89, it hurt that his teams were so good and so much fun to watch.
Call me crazy, but I think Clark’s style of play is the primary reason for her stardom. She’s doing stuff most collegiate men’s cannot do by draining 30 footers. The behind the back cross-over into a step back three is an incredible difficult shot no matter the playing level.
Agree with most all of the above, but I'd throw in that the strength of the college brands is a big factor, even for those who don't have a rooting interest for their alma mater.
What's stronger, UCONN or the Indiana Fever? Iowa or the Las Vegas Aces? Duke or the Charlotte Hornets?
Familiar faces are great when they stay in the same jersey. But it's also good for the jersey to be familiar to the public. I'd guess that college brands just have an easier time being perceived as 'authentic' than a lot of NBA teams, and all WNBA teams.
People constantly miss this in debates about NIL, paying players, etc. The schools themselves provide a huge proportion of the value to college football and basketball, let alone all the Olympic sports.
If Caitlin Clark played for UConn, Stanford, or any other traditional woman's power, she would not have crossed over into the mainstream. Playing at a non blue blood helped build the "underdog" narrative. BTW, two weeks ago, City (3rd place) vs Arsenal (2nd place) had 5 million viewers (English and Spanish) for a game that started at 9 am pst.
Joe Lacob would sacrifice a son to get his new WNBA teams inaugural season moved up a year and get Clark to the Bay. Theyd instantly be the 3rd team in this market