I’d like to gently suggest that economics, not race, is the real story here. Time is trying to sell magazines. ESPN is trying to sell subscriptions to its services and ads during its televised content. The NBA is trying to sell you on the idea that it cares about professional women’s basketball even though audiences have proven year in and year out that they don’t.

As I write this column, I’m watching Springfield play North Central in the NCAA Division III football playoffs. There is no reason for someone to care about this game unless he went to Springfield (no idea what state this school resides in), went to North Central (ditto), or is so enamored with football that he will watch it regardless of who is playing. I occupy the third category. I also really like D3 sports because of what they represent.

I mention this only because it dovetails with the issue at hand, which is something that somebody in the media coined “the Caitlin Clark effect,” which can be boiled down to the following: After starring in women’s basketball at the University of Iowa, Caitlin Clark matriculated to the WNBA and, for a brief period of time, made it something that people occasionally chose to watch even though they had other choices.

To wit: A recent playoff game involving her team, the Indiana Fever, against the Connecticut Sun drew 1.8 million viewers. A non–Caitlin Clark playoff game featuring the Atlanta Dream and the New York Liberty drew 440,000 viewers.

For comparison’s sake, last year’s Myrtle Beach Bowl, featuring Ohio (not Ohio State) vs. Georgia Southern, pulled in 1.2 million viewers.

Read More