Women’s basketball has joined the general silliness of March Madness

The decision that allowed women to be Mad in March is marked as progress and happily coincidental with Caitlin Clark, who plays basketball. In fact, Clark managed to become the face of March Madness, much like, for entirely different and absurd reasons, Taylor Swift became the face of the Super Bowl.

It was not until 2022 that women athletes were deemed worthy of being included in the special branding of college basketball’s playoffs, remaining separate and unlabeled, the casualties of indifference.

While the male student/athletes of March Madness played loudly and obviously on stages throughout the land, preening as much for NBA attention as for dear old State U., the parallel efforts of women/athletes endured the solace of disinterest.

No longer is that true, and while something has been gained, a moment of reflection on what has been lost: Innocence.

The general silliness of the season now includes two of the standard genders with brackets and boosters and pregame blather, sometimes confusing as in two Connecticuts and two North Carolina States in the Final Four, causing sportsbooks to ask an extra question, but not that hard to follow.

Questions of the pro draft are now newsworthy (Clark, yes; LSU’s Angela Reese, according Vogue Magazine, yes; UConn’s Paige Bueckers, probably not), more signs that women’s basketball has reached — what? Parity? Maturity? Scrutiny?

The growing pains are obvious. LSU basketball coach Kim Mulkey overreacts to a Washington Post piece about her even before it is published, something Bob Knight might have done. An LA Times columnist apologizes for his poor metaphors, taken as insults when, as a poor metaphorist myself, I sympathize when someone can’t take a joke.

The NCAA is dismayed at the idea that betting has become a problem. The whole of March Madness is by design structured for gambling. A line must be drawn on “sports betting to protect student athletes and to protect the integrity of the game,” according to NCAA president Charlie Baker.

The timing of the NCAA’s alarm does seem suspicious now that it realizes that, say, somewhere someone might be making a prop bet on whether Clark is making 10 3s or less in a game. I am not sure the same concern would be as great if Purdue’s Zach Edey is clanking free throws.

Things have gotten wacky. Whether real or resourceful, the rapper and actor Ice Cube supposedly offered Clark $5 million to play half-court 3-on-3 basketball, attracting the news cycle for a day. Actually Mr. Cube may be underbidding. Taking advantage of NIL (name, likeness, image) opportunities Clark has sponsorships (Nike, Buick, State Farm, et. al.) that may already pay her that much.

She appears to have handled all of this pretty well. None of it is Caitlin Clark’s fault, of course, though it does kind of seem that way. Few female athletes have had the impact on popular culture that Clark has, few athletes of any gender come to that.

Tiger Woods comes to mind, bursting into golf and carrying the sport to expanded popularity. Chris Evert did for women’s tennis what solid pioneers like Billie Jean King and Margaret Court could not. Serena Williams enhanced the legacy.

Michael Jordan, of course, became greater than the game, though he was reluctantly chosen to be a Chicago Bull. Tom Brady was an afterthought, maybe an easier entry than for others highly drafted who turned out to be disappointments.

Pete Maravich was as much the creature of the moment as is Clark now, and thanks to Clark breaking his scoring record, a record that has too many ifs to take seriously, Maravich is resurrected for a brief reflection.

Clark is positioned, like it or not, to be something greater than just a basketball player. She is seen as an influence in general society. She is identified as being “transcendent,” a role model for the possible, a representative of something more, equality or some such, and there may be no greater burden than being a symbol.

Whether Clark is just a passing — as well as logo-shooting — spectacle is yet to be seen. Expectation is a crusher.