The 2023 NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament had tremendous momentum, especially after the previous year’s thrilling matchups and record-breaking television viewership.

Much of that surge in popularity was attributed to the sensational performances of Iowa’s star guard Caitlin Clark, whose high-scoring abilities and magical playmaking drew comparisons to some of the greatest names in the sport.

Leading her team to an unexpected run in 2022, Clark managed to capture the attention of sports fans everywhere, transcending the typical audience for women’s college basketball.

Heading into this year’s tournament, excitement was high that she would propel Iowa to another deep run, possibly leading to another must-watch national title game.

However, for fans who had come to expect Clark’s electrifying presence, disappointment soon followed when it became clear that Iowa would not be featuring in the final. Without Clark in the championship lineup, the anticipation dampened, and the ratings for the NCAA Finals dropped significantly.

The ratings drop was surprising because it wasn’t as if the final was completely devoid of star power. On one side, the stage belonged to a perennially successful program led by the legendary head coach Geno Auriemma.

That very name has dominated women’s college basketball for decades, with more national championships to his credit than any other coach in the sport.

On the bench, he commanded some of the best collegiate players, including standout guard Paige Bueckers, who had garnered widespread attention even before stepping onto a college court.

Bueckers was widely acknowledged as the future face of women’s basketball, combining scoring, passing, leadership, and an on-court flair that captivates fans.

Despite her vast potential and skill set, Bueckers was working her way back from injury this season, meaning her impact might not measure up to the standard she had set before. Even with her presence and Auriemma’s coaching genius, the magic of last year’s final just wasn’t there.

One factor contributing to this scenario is that Caitlin Clark emerged as a generational player whose offensive skill set made Iowa’s games must-see events.

She didn’t just rack up points in bunches; she did so while weaving through defenders, shooting from the logo, and dishing out highlight-worthy assists. Her style was reminiscent of prolific NBA scorers who pull fans to the edge of their seats whenever they touch the ball.

It’s a rare phenomenon in any sport: an athlete who can transcend the game’s typical audience and bring in casual viewers eager to watch something special.

For the women’s college game, Clark’s run had a refreshing and galvanizing effect, appealing not only to the loyal fan base but also to new or inconsistent viewers who remember her dazzling performances. With her team not making it back to the big stage, many potential viewers seemed less compelled to tune in.

The storyline also affected how the media and promotions were shaping up around the championship. Networks, sponsors, and marketers had built up a narrative that highlighted certain star players and storied programs.

By the time the final rolled around, everyone in sports media had been hoping to lean on the star appeal of Clark, especially considering her remarkable performances in the previous tournament.

When that wasn’t available, the fallback narrative centered on powerhouse programs like Connecticut, with Auriemma’s legacy and Bueckers’s prodigious talent.

But the missing piece of a new-school rivalry or an underdog story with a transcendent star proved to be detrimental to the hype machine.

Fans who were not dedicated followers of women’s basketball or didn’t have loyalty to the remaining teams found fewer reasons to watch. The end result: the championship game’s ratings took a notable dive.

Moreover, it’s not just about one or two star players. The phenomenon speaks to the broader state of women’s collegiate basketball viewership. For years, the audience for the sport has ebbed and flowed in response to iconic teams or athletes who capture mainstream attention.

When Tennessee ruled the roost under the legendary Pat Summitt, the Lady Volunteers became synonymous with women’s basketball, and a legion of fans tuned in for that consistent excellence.

Then, Connecticut took over, and consistency turned into outright dominance, helping raise the profile of the sport. Yet, relying on one dominant program can also become predictable for casual fans, as they may presume the result is inevitable.

Recently, new stars like Clark, as well as Bueckers, have broken through that monotony by offering glimpses of rivalries and challenges to UConn’s throne. Still, if the tournament storyline doesn’t yield a face-off that sparks excitement, the national audience can wane quickly.

Another diagonal to consider is the staging of the tournament in general, including how the games were broadcast. Women’s basketball has, for a long time, fought for prime-time slots and coverage, pushing networks and advertisers to give the sport the recognition and exposure they believe it deserves.

With last year’s success—spearheaded in large part by Caitlin Clark’s magical run—supporters of the sport were eager to see sustained coverage, better broadcast times, and more robust marketing.

Even though many of these improvements stayed in place, the absence of a transcendent figure or a rivalry that casual fans were familiar with still had a negative impact.

Sports viewership often depends on both compelling matchups and star power, and lacking Clark’s continued presence in the final, the championship clash felt less relevant to broader audiences, which in turn drove the ratings downward.

For Paige Bueckers, this was an especially tough situation. Last season, she suffered an injury that cut her campaign short, and she had to battle her way through recovery. At her best, she can take over a game, direct the offense, sink clutch shots, and provide her patented no-look passes that dazzle fans.

Together with Geno Auriemma’s coaching prowess, one would think that could fuel a new wave of viewership even without Clark. Yet, questions arose about whether Bueckers was fully in peak shape, physically and mentally, to carry that burden of expectation.

When a player is not at their explosive best, it can dampen the spectacle. Even a name as illustrious as Auriemma’s has its limits in drawing casual viewers if the on-court product doesn’t match the hype or if there is no significant rival star to go head-to-head.

Another subtle factor in the ratings downturn is the narrative intrigue. Last year, Clark felt like the ultimate disruptor—a player from Iowa of all places, stepping up to challenge storied programs and shining in the underdog role. Her run delivered storyline after storyline, turning each game into a must-see event.

This year’s championship simply didn’t provide that shock factor or novelty. Even if the game itself was high-quality basketball, fans who might have tuned in for an epic confrontation or a star-studded showdown simply didn’t get the impetus to watch.

Sports, at their core, rely on stories: star players chasing legacy, teams with backstories facing off, or rivalries with high stakes. Without that compelling narrative culminating in the final, the casual viewer is left with limited reason to spend two hours watching, especially on a busy sporting weekend.

Looking ahead, many believe that this year’s ratings dip might just be a blip in an otherwise positive upward trend for women’s college basketball.

The sport has been steadily gaining traction beyond the core fan base, thanks largely to remarkable talents like Clark and Bueckers. Their popularity indicates that a generational shift is taking place, one in which exceptional individual performances can reel in new audiences.

If both Clark and Bueckers are healthy and leading competitive teams next season, the storyline could quickly become one of redemption, rivalry, and renewed hope.

Fans, networks, and the NCAA at large have high hopes that these young stars will seize the spotlight. Meanwhile, other up-and-coming talents across the country are eager to spark their own hype, contributing to a richer tapestry of contenders that can sustain attention, even if one big name bows out early.

It’s also worth noting that many of the best players in the women’s game tend to remain connected to college basketball longer than their male counterparts, who often leave after a single year if they are NBA-bound.

This means that a player like Caitlin Clark, if she so chooses, can continue to build a legacy over multiple seasons, generating storylines that carry the sport for longer periods. The same can be said for Bueckers as she returns to form.

The NCAA and television networks can capitalize on sustained narratives if multiple stars remain in the collegiate ranks long enough to face each other repeatedly. That approach could create consistent year-over-year storylines, building an even stronger fan base.

This year’s disappointment, in other words, might be an inflection point, sparking lessons about not relying on a single player to draw viewers.

Already, talk has begun about how to diversify promotion to highlight multiple teams and athletes, ensuring the finals maintain appeal, regardless of who emerges out of the bracket.

By all accounts, this year’s final was a reminder of how critical star power and compelling narratives are for driving viewership in women’s sports.

Caitlin Clark’s absence illustrated the fragile dependence on a single superstar, and though Paige Bueckers remains an extraordinary talent, she alone could not plug the gap.

Geno Auriemma’s presence, while legendary, was not enough to stoke the same excitement without a tangential rivalry or a breakout star performance to match Clark’s heroics from the previous year. Nevertheless, there’s reason to stay optimistic.

The dip in ratings might highlight a short-term disadvantage, yet the path forward is shaped by the recognition that future stars will emerge, battles between teams will intensify, and the women’s game will continue to grow.

Fans eagerly await the day when the final sees Clark, Bueckers, or any number of other rising talents squaring off in a game that once again captures the imagination of audiences well beyond women’s basketball’s core faithful.

Until then, the NCAA and the basketball world will no doubt work diligently to ensure that the next time the championship rolls around, it has all the ingredients for both a riveting contest and a ratings blockbuster.