If fans and advocates of women's basketball are being honest about why the Caitlin Clark phenomenon is breaking out in a way that superstars from previous eras of the sport couldn't, her popularity… We need to acknowledge that there are sneaky but decisive factors.
Complaints are a powerful tool in sports, long needed to promote equality and create opportunities for women, but Clark never presented herself as the face of a greater cause. Part of her appeal to fans (mostly male, of course) who have traditionally ignored or ridiculed women's basketball is that there's no shame in getting the attention she deserves. Her charisma and style stand alone.
And as this weekend approaches, the narrative around Clark shifts to the 3,667 point mark forever associated with Pete Maravich, and that's exactly where her legacy should be.
By myself.
Like Pistol Pete.
Calling Clark's final 3,668th point some kind of milestone or seminal moment for women's sports is the kind of forced, illogical nonsense, and unnecessary given everything she accomplished. It will only create a backlash. Isn't being the most prolific scorer in NCAA Division I women's college basketball history enough?
The reason is simple. Because they are not the same. And even if Clark gets the 50 points she needs to match that number in a few games, she won't be able to break the record because she and Maravich don't play by the same rules in the same era. No.
more:Watch Pete Maravich: See how close Iowa State basketball's Caitlin Clark is to hitting the scoring record
If Clark were the guy doing what he is doing now, I would write what Detroit Mercy's Antwon Davis wrote a year ago when he chased Pistol Pete to within three points. would write exactly the same thing.
Context matters.
The sport is evolving and records are being broken, but no one in their right mind would have thought that Davis and Maravich really belonged in the same conversation.
Maravich played in an era when freshmen were not eligible for varsity play, so he played in just 83 games at LSU and averaged a ridiculous 44.2 points without the help of a 3-point line or shot clock.
It is a statistical anomaly with no comparison. What would forcing it accomplish, both for Clark and for women's basketball?
Numbers and records in all sports naturally attract attention, but they are often used as fodder for ill-advised and petty debates. The only functional reason they're important is because, as all sports do, they tell a never-ending story about how sports evolve over generations.
But that only makes sense if the story is told accurately and completely.
We saw this unfold during the final years of Serena Williams' career, when she seemed to be chasing another Grand Slam title to match Margaret Court's 24 women's singles wins.
Of course, this was crazy.
Court may have been the best player of her era, but she won only 11 of 24 matches during the Open Era, when professionals were allowed to play in Grand Slams. From 1960 to 1966, Court won seven consecutive Australian Open matches. Back then, the Australian Open was more of a club championship for mostly local players, rather than the global major tournament it is today.
Looking at the context behind these numbers, it's more than reasonable to conclude that while Cote and Williams were both great in their time, they are dissimilar in what they accomplished.
So why compare them in the first place? Because that's what we do, and it often ends up being extraordinary.
In fact, we saw this scene again in the very same sport earlier this year when ESPN liked to flash a graphic of the court's 24 major matches alongside Novak Djokovic's 24 men's singles matches.
This somehow made even less sense than when I was doing it with Williams. Djokovic has spent the past five years chasing and eventually surpassing Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal's Grand Slam totals. It was an important record, one that would one day accurately tell the story of this era of men's tennis and, ultimately, the sport. Trying to force Court into that conversation is not only misleading, but a shameless attempt to create comparisons where none actually exist.
However, in sports, it seems that it is never enough to judge athletes in the context of their own time and in comparison to their peers. Whether it's J.J. Redick needlessly denouncing Bob Cousy's rivals as “plumbers and firefighters” on ESPN a few years ago, or LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan, we're always left with no sense. We are forced to make comparisons and encouraged to take sides throughout the ages. A debate that will never be settled.
Clark's story has been so captivating in large part because it hasn't traditionally pitted men's basketball against women's basketball; On the one hand, it's fraught with contempt, and on the other hand, it's fraught with the myopic view that women's basketball is a sport. A purer, more enjoyable form of sport. In the end, the market will decide.
Clark has managed to bridge that gap more than anyone else, without demanding that fans respect women's basketball more or creating a chorus of people who say they don't “get it” if they don't watch it. accomplished. in front. Clark's boom has happened much more organically, which is probably why he has a chance to actually grow the sport to some degree no matter what happens this March.
But bringing Maravich's record into the story threatens to change that, because it's not natural. It's completely forced and fake, featuring two people from two different eras playing against different genders, and putting the entire country in an episode of “First Take.”
When Clark scores her 3,668th point, she will still be the leading scorer in women's college basketball history. Maravich will always be the leading scorer in men's college basketball history.
Any attempt to connect them beyond that would only do a disservice to both, and to the rest of us who are simply trying to enjoy The Clark Show for what it is.
Follow USA TODAY sports columnist Dan Wolken on social media @DanWolken
