In recent years, ESPN has become one of the most influential outlets in shaping how fans and analysts perceive the best players in women’s college basketball. However, recent decisions regarding rankings have raised eyebrows and sparked intense debate: Is ESPN moving the goalposts when it comes to ranking the top talent in women’s college basketball?

With the rise of players like Caitlin Clark, Aliyah Boston, and Bueckers, the conversation surrounding women’s college basketball has reached new heights. But the latest rankings by ESPN have raised an important question—are they shifting the criteria and changing the definition of what it means to be the best player? Have standards changed, and if so, is this fair to those who are currently redefining the game?

Let’s dive into the conversation and explore why many are asking if ESPN is rethinking its criteria when it comes to ranking the top women’s players.

The Shift in Ranking Criteria: What’s Changed?

Historically, the rankings for women’s college basketball players have been based on a combination of individual stats, team success, and consistent performance over the season. Players like Breanna Stewart and Sabrina Ionescu were celebrated for their all-around brilliance, while others earned their spot based on impressive scoring records or game-changing moments.

However, ESPN’s latest rankings seem to suggest a subtle shift in this formula. Caitlin Clark, widely regarded as one of the most electrifying players in women’s college basketball, was placed below a few players whose teams didn’t necessarily achieve the same level of success or impact on the national stage. While Clark has earned multiple Player of the Year honors, record-breaking performances, and has made a significant mark on NCAA history, the rankings did not fully reflect her superstar status.

This has led to questions about the criteria being applied. Is team success becoming more important than individual performance? Are ESPN’s rankings now factoring in something other than just on-court achievements? If so, what does this mean for future rankings and the players who are currently in the spotlight?

Caitlin Clark’s Case: A Superstar Not Recognized?

Let’s take the case of Caitlin Clark, who has sparked the most conversation around this issue. Known for her three-point shooting and ability to take over games, Clark has already solidified herself as one of the greatest players in NCAA women’s basketball. In the 2022-2023 season, Clark set multiple NCAA records, including the most three-pointers in a season, and became the first player—male or female—to average over 27 points, 8 assists, and 7 rebounds per game in a season.

Clark has been consistently at the forefront of media coverage, with millions of fans watching her games. Yet, despite her historical performances, she’s found herself ranked below players with less impressive individual achievements, or in some cases, lower-ranking teams.

While it’s understandable to consider team success when ranking the best players, it’s hard to ignore the fact that Clark’s individual brilliance is on a level few can match. Shouldn’t a player like her be recognized as one of the top players in the nation, even if her team’s overall performance hasn’t resulted in a championship? This discrepancy in rankings suggests that ESPN may be using a revised approach—one that places greater emphasis on team success over individual dominance.

The Impact of Team Success vs. Individual Dominance

One of the biggest critiques of ESPN’s rankings is the potential shift toward emphasizing team success more than individual brilliance. In many cases, top players who may not have made deep tournament runs or have a championship under their belt still dominate in terms of their individual statistics and contributions. Clark’s season exemplifies this perfectly: She was the clear-cut best player in the country last season in terms of both scoring and playmaking, but the rankings didn’t always reflect that.

This raises the question: Should a player’s ranking be based solely on how well their team performs, or should it focus on individual achievements and the impact they have on the game? In Clark’s case, her stats alone would suggest a superstar status. However, ESPN’s rankings seem to be downplaying this and giving more weight to team championships—something that doesn’t necessarily align with her performance as an individual.

It’s also worth considering the context of team sports. A great player can have an incredible season but still be let down by injuries, lack of depth, or simply bad matchups in the postseason. So, does this mean that players who elevate their team through individual brilliance should be penalized because they didn’t win a national title or make a deep playoff run?

Are ESPN’s Rankings a Reflection of Shifting Standards?

ESPN’s rankings are one of the most prominent in the world of women’s college basketball, and they often influence public perception and player legacies. However, many are questioning whether the outlet is setting new standards that favor certain metrics over others. If ESPN is indeed shifting its criteria—placing more importance on team performance and less on individual stats—this could change how future players are evaluated.

For example, players like Aliyah Boston and Bueckers, who come from programs that consistently contend for national championships, may continue to see favorable rankings, even if their individual performances don’t match the out-of-this-world numbers put up by players like Clark. This could unintentionally result in underrating players who might not have the support of a powerhouse program but are still the best in their respective positions.

The Growing Debate: Is This About Protecting The Status Quo?

There’s also the question of whether ESPN’s decision to rank players based on team success—particularly those from powerhouse programs—is a way of preserving the status quo. If ESPN keeps the top players tied to the well-known programs like UConn, Stanford, or South Carolina, it may be seen as a way to maintain a narrative that favors elite basketball programs over individual talent.

Caitlin Clark, for example, represents a new era of talent in women’s basketball—one that transcends traditional powerhouses. Clark has turned Iowa into a national contender, but her team isn’t considered a “blue blood” in the same sense as UConn or South Carolina. So, the question remains: Is ESPN moving the goalpost to maintain the dominance of traditional programs and ignore the rise of individual talent from less-heralded schools?

The Future of Rankings: Should ESPN Reassess Its Criteria?

The rise of Caitlin Clark, Zia Cooke, Haley Jones, and other standout players from a variety of schools shows that women’s college basketball is evolving. The old criteria that placed heavy emphasis on team championships may no longer be the best way to evaluate players who are truly changing the game with their individual excellence.

If ESPN and other outlets continue to prioritize team success over individual brilliance, they risk missing out on recognizing the true stars of the sport—players like Clark, who are pushing the boundaries of what’s possible on the court. For women’s basketball to continue growing, individual players who shine in big moments deserve to be recognized as superstars, regardless of their team’s performance in the postseason.

Conclusion: The Need for a Balanced Approach

While team success will always be an important part of evaluating players, ESPN—and other basketball rankings—must find a way to balance individual talent and team accomplishments. Players like Caitlin Clark have proven that individual brilliance can take a team to the highest level, and they deserve recognition for that.

If ESPN continues to move the goalposts without considering the overall impact players like Clark have had on the sport, they risk distorting the narrative and overlooking the next generation of superstars. The future of women’s college basketball depends on recognizing both individual excellence and team accomplishments, without allowing one to overshadow the other.

Ultimately, ESPN—and the entire basketball community—must embrace a more holistic approach that recognizes the full spectrum of greatness, ensuring that players like Clark receive the recognition they truly deserve.