Let us first note that a sportswriter’s provocative-by-today’s-standards opinion, widely seen as an insult to Coach Geno Auriemma and his team, actually helped women’s basketball more than any of its on-court action. Most of us paying a morsel of attention to this stuff wouldn’t be otherwise. The numbers show that talking doesn’t equal

followers, ratings, nor, most importantly, social cache.

Cache is what women’s basketball supporters want from the average sports fan. Some of them aren’t concerned with sports per se, but with holding up the ladies in some way. They don’t seem to get is that the overall competition is NOT the issue. The best teams in most other sports are dominant, too. Even if the games were ‘more competitive’, the people who aren’t interested wouldn’t become so.

“The typical top seed [in the college women’s tournament] since 2003 has been a 38-point favorite — and has won by an average of 37 points,” wrote the FiveThirtyEight website. “For comparison, the average No. 1 seed on the men’s side since 2003 has been a 26-point favorite.”

That statistic shows that the disparity isn’t that different. There are some extremely gifted and athletic women playing ball these days. But on the men’s side, the reflexes are normally a bit faster, the action quicker, and yes, the hops higher. At the Y, you are more likely to stop and watch a game between college-age players, than forty-year-olds. Even if the forty-year-olds are still talented.

Auriemma invoked Tiger Woods in defense of the Shaughnessy comments. Woods is a bad comparison for the Connecticut Huskies women’s team, because he was dominant in a way never seen before, but didn’t win 90+% of his outings. Even at Tiger’s greatest heights, there were other golfers not far behind. Similar to U. Conn, he was an extraordinary front-runner. But he never won more than three majors in a calendar year.

Babe Ruth might be a better straw man for that argument. His offensive stats eclipsed entire teams. But most baseball fans will note his lack of competition in the form of African-descended and Latino players. Ruth was a product of his time and his competitors were chosen by societal forces much larger than he was. His undeniably awesome numbers are always going to be questioned by modern sports observers. Like the Huskies, who can only play the opponent before them, that doubt is not fair. But in another way, it’s totally fair.

Related: Women in the NBA

This “Is U. Conn too dominant?” debate has been ongoing, and, in a larger sense, pokes at the relevance of women’s basketball. The debate is buttressed by the people who think to convince the rest of us into expressing more appreciation. They believe that ANY advancement and attention for ANY female is a good thing, and is even deserved, on its face.

These are the same people who feel they must bring the “first to do so-and-so, men’s OR women’s” comment into discussions about female athletes. No one does that with all-time men’s squads (if you find an exception, please correct), which signals where the standard is set.

These are the people who compare U. Conn to John Wooden’s UCLA teams. ESPN ran a day-to-day ticker back when the Huskies were approaching Wooden’s streak the first time.

Can you imagine if the opposite happened? If a man or group of males were compared to the ‘best women’s team’ of their respective sport? The fact that this never does happen, is very telling.

Some commentators rate the Lady Huskies’ streaks more impressive than the Bruins. They are as wrong as the out-and-out misogynists. In fact, the Wooden comparison itself is anti-female: Why can’t Auriemma and company just stand on their own as something historic and special? Why must we compare this Huskies’ dynasty to any male at all? Because it makes the women’s accomplishments legit in their minds.

“Well, if the Golden State Warriors won by 40 every night, we’d be celebrating gleefully, glad to see history.” Absolutely not true. If that happened, we would be suspicious. Especially if it happened for three seasons in a row.

“If the Warriors…” doesn’t fit. Why? Because in the NBA, the level of competition across the board IS the issue. At the NBA level, the talent is wound up tighter than a violin string. The ones you think are league scrubs are still some of the best on the planet. That’s why, unlike in women’s college ball, a bad team can beat the best in the league occasionally. The gap between top women’s teams and the other schools still is so much greater.

We can check off all of the accolades for Auriemma. He is an all-timer, a great roster manager and recruiter, and spokesman for the game who will be appreciated more after he’s gone. Maybe the truth is that he is some kind of niche genius who deserves more worship from the sports cult. Maybe any of us would be offended when, despite that great resume, someone criticized what was near and dear.

We have largely made this about shaming someone who popped off on social media. We are glossing over the real issue, as usual, in favor of shoot from the hip opinionating. So, is UConn bad for women’s basketball? Who knows?

The Boston sportswriter’s public post was a quick take opinion that successfully got thousands of people worked up and typing furiously. By the rules of today’s society, Dan Shaughnessy had implicitly attacked all women. He had to pay a little, by way of social media flaming…

Does the rest of women’s college hoops need to improve? Yes. Auriemma is simply good at what he does. Coach has more sense than most of his supporters—he doesn’t expect everyone to applaud. He knows it is possible to be impressed on whatever scale, yet not be interested in the process.He might even know that not every single sport has to be popular and increase its social imprint every single year, which is what a lot of media whine about.

Anyway, no one complains this much when we say (accurately) that men’s college basketball isn’t so great, either. That side of things normally only gets kinda good after April 1.