There’s one thing I misunderstood – or at least vastly underestimated – about Caitlin Clark’s impact on the WNBA. And there’s also one thing I think almost everyone misunderstood about the WNBA’s reaction to Caitlin Clark and her impact on the league.

The WNBA playoffs begin on Sunday – Clark’s Indiana Fever are tentatively scheduled to face the Connecticut Sun in a best-of-three series.

In the past, the league has struggled to generate viewership or attention outside of hardcore fans, especially in the face of competition from professional and college football. Last year’s playoffs averaged just 728,000 viewers on ESPN — an increase of over 30 percent, but still a paltry number. The playoffs overall averaged just 470,000 viewers.

Not this time.

This is the Clark factor I didn’t expect.

Would her arrival after a legendary and legendarily popular career at the University of Iowa bring additional attention and new fans? Absolutely. Clark is one of the most popular athletes in America. The ratings, media attention, jersey sales, etc. would explode.

However, interest at one level of the sport does not necessarily translate to interest at the next level — or any other level. The U.S. women’s national soccer team has emerged from World Cups and Olympic gold with a lot of momentum and mega-famous stars — Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Carli Lloyd, etc. — but the impact on the National Women’s Soccer League has been more of a boost than a sustained boost.

While Clark’s playing style appealed to the crowd, she also benefited from some built-in factors.

First, Iowa has a much larger fan base than any WNBA team, so when she arrived in Iowa City, she didn’t have to create Hawkeye fans; she just had to get a higher percentage of Hawkeye fans interested in women’s basketball. Second, most of her biggest games were against equally – or even more – popular teams…Ohio State, Indiana, Connecticut, LSU, South Carolina, and so on.

Clark and Iowa became an event wherever they appeared. That’s different from the interest you get at night.

Then there was the NCAA Tournament draw – the brackets, the one-and-done, the time in March/April when the country focuses on basketball. The women’s Final Four is always more important than the WNBA.

The 2024 national title game between Iowa and South Carolina drew an astonishing 18.9 million viewers, but how many of them would follow Clark through an extended WNBA regular season without the drama of March Madness? Would they watch a boring July game?

Well, a lot of people did. The increase in WNBA ratings this year was almost unbelievable.

ESPN reports that the games averaged 1.2 million viewers, compared to 440,000 last year. For comparison, the NBA’s average rating last season for games on ESPN and TNT was 1.56 million. About 3.44 million watched the WNBA All-Star Game, while the NBA All-Star Game drew 5.5 million.

In “The Fever” alone, five games were watched by more than two million viewers and 18 by more than one million viewers. And not just on Sunday afternoons on ABC.

A Friday night game against Chicago on Aug. 30 drew 1.6 million viewers to Ion Stadium, by far the largest audience in the history of the low-profile cable network. Two games on NBATV drew 600,000 or more viewers.

Clark fans stopped coming and going. They watched every game. Some of them no doubt started watching other teams as well. Yes, Clark was the main attraction, but more people today know about the genius of A’ja Wilson and Breanna Stewart than a year ago.

This suggests that while the Fever’s ratings may set new records in the playoffs, there could be a sustained and sustained increase across all postseason games that exceeds any reasonable expectations – especially mine – for Clark’s performance.

Now for the part that caused problems for the league and many of its fans. Clark demanded huge attention and sold-out shows wherever she played. This understandably also caused resentment among returning players and many long-time fans.

There were endless complaints that WNBA players and coaches should embrace and thank Clark for what she did for the league, but the resistance of many – or sometimes literal pressure on them – made the league even more interesting.

The best thing that could have happened for everyone was the cold shoulders and hard fouls, the Olympic “snub,” and the seeming disregard for her game by Sheryl Swoopes and television commentators. The more pressure was put on Clark, the more her fans – and all fans – had reason to tune in to see how she would respond.

Rivalries are great for sports. Controversy sells. If Clark had been embraced, accepted and celebrated, the 2024 season would have lacked the spice that made it an even more exciting installment.

Clark slowly adapted to the physicality of the WNBA as her teammates adapted to her style of play. She enters the playoffs as one of the league’s top five players and now regularly scores 25 or 30 points a game while also hitting threes and throwing passes the length of the court. That’s what attracted so many to her.

No, there probably won’t be a playoff game that reaches 18.9 million viewers, but Caitlin Clark hasn’t just exceeded expected popularity ratings as a rookie; the opposition to her and her success has helped her do so.

Game 1 is on Sunday – directly against the NFL. This time, a lot of people will be watching anyway.