The WNBA draft ratings are in, and the numbers reveal a truth the league and its media partners can’t spin: There’s Caitlin Clark, and then there’s everyone else.

While Paige Bueckers’ selection was supposed to be a marquee moment—her UConn pedigree and Gino Auriemma’s endorsement hyped to the max—the viewership told a different story. Bueckers’ draft drew a respectable 1.3 million viewers, but that’s a far cry from the 2.6 million who tuned in for Clark’s draft just a year earlier. In the world of sports television, that’s not just a drop—it’s a cliff.

For months, ESPN and the mainstream media have tried to anoint Bueckers as the next face of women’s basketball. She’s a star, no doubt, but as the numbers show, she’s not yet a draw. The difference is more than just statistics—it’s a referendum on what truly captivates the modern sports fan.

Gino Auriemma, UConn’s legendary coach and self-appointed president of the “Anybody But Caitlin Clark” club, has spent two seasons subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) downplaying Clark’s impact. His passive-aggressive interviews and smirks have become a sideshow, but the numbers speak louder than any coach’s commentary. The league’s focus, at least from the fans’ perspective, is still squarely on Clark.

Why? Because Clark didn’t just play basketball—she transformed it. She turned regular season games into national events, filled arenas, and generated a buzz that transcended the sport. Her final college season averages—31.6 points, 8.9 assists, 7.4 rebounds—are the stuff of legend. She shattered scoring records that had stood for half a century, all while being the number one target for every defense. Box-and-one, triple teams, junk defenses—nothing worked. Clark thrived under pressure, her every move dissected and debated.

Meanwhile, Bueckers, for all her talent and accolades, simply hasn’t captured the mainstream imagination in the same way. Her numbers—21.9 points, 3.8 assists, 5.2 rebounds—are impressive, but they don’t carry the same weight. The draft viewership proved it: Clark is the rare player who transcends the sport, a genuine superstar whose presence lifts the entire league.

Yet, the WNBA and its partners seem determined to manufacture a new superstar, as if charisma and mass appeal can be conjured by committee. The league’s attempts to recreate the Clark phenomenon with Bueckers felt forced. The draft broadcast was awkward, the interviews stumbled, and the overall energy was deflated. Even veteran broadcasters admitted the event lacked last year’s electricity.

The numbers are damning. The 2024 draft drew 1.3 million viewers—down 49% from the previous year. That’s not just a marketing hiccup; it’s a boardroom crisis. In the sports world, ratings are revenue, and a nearly 50% drop is a disaster. It’s a sign that fans aren’t buying what the league is selling—at least not yet.

Social media noticed too. Twitter exploded with side-by-side comparisons: “No Caitlin, no ratings,” read one viral comment. Others mocked the attempt to replace “the sun with a flashlight.” The consensus was clear: Clark isn’t just a WNBA player—she’s women’s basketball’s main event.

The league’s approach risks alienating the very fans Clark brought to the sport. Instead of embracing her groundbreaking popularity, the WNBA seems to be hedging its bets, pushing Bueckers as a safer, more controllable star. But fans aren’t fooled. They see the forced rivalry, the uneven media coverage, the way Clark’s every move is scrutinized while Bueckers enjoys fluff pieces and red carpet treatment.

There’s even speculation that the media’s embrace of Bueckers is about more than basketball. Some critics argue that Clark’s popularity is being downplayed for reasons that have nothing to do with her game. The result? A growing sense of disenchantment among fans who feel their favorite player is being sidelined by a league unwilling to fully ride the wave she created.

It didn’t have to be this way. Clark and Bueckers are both phenomenal athletes, and together, they could propel women’s basketball to unprecedented heights. Their contrasting styles—Clark’s explosive range and firepower, Bueckers’ smooth control and composure—should be celebrated, not pitted against each other in a manufactured rivalry.

Instead, the league risks stifling its own growth. The decline in ratings isn’t just a statistic; it’s a warning sign. The WNBA’s future depends on recognizing and nurturing authentic star power, not trying to manufacture it in a boardroom.

The bottom line: Caitlin Clark redefined what’s possible in women’s sports. She brought millions to the game, made headlines, and ignited a passion that can’t be faked. If the WNBA wants to keep those fans, it needs to embrace the moment—and the player—who made it all possible. Otherwise, the league risks slipping back into obscurity, one awkward draft at a time.