Today Caitlin Clark became the all time NCAA basketball scoring leader by passing Pistol Pete Maravich's career total of 3,667 points. I was fortunate enough to attend LSU during the same four years as Maravich. Comparing Caitlin Clark's record to Maravich's is ridiculous. She played with four years of eligibility and has a career average of 32 points per game. Pete played in an era where freshmen weren't eligible to play varsity ball. His scoring record was established in 3 years of varsity eligibility. If you added his freshman scoring total to his 3 varsity years she wouldn't be close. Second, and even more important, her 32 point average includes the 3 point shot. Pistol Pete averaged 44.2 points per game before the 3 point shot was in existence. Anyone who is old enough to remember Pistol Pete knows that he took a large percentage of jump shots from beyond 3 point line distance in today's game. His scoring average of 44.2 would be more like 56 or more with a 3 point line as it exists today. Caitlin deserves her due but comparing her 4 year total including 3 pointers to Maravich's total in 3 years without a 3 point shot is ludicrous and laughable.
the claim that she passed Pete is like saying mondo duplantis beat Pete at pole vault, or that skenes beat pistol pete at strikeouts. pete never played women's basketball so the comparison makes zero sense. they are different sports and the record books are totally different.
The reporter who wrote this for the newspaper has little journalistic merit. She tried to make a name for herself or keep her job. Deep down she knew it was bullshit…
Another factor I don't see mentioned often in this debate is that Clark plays in the shot clock era. No such thing in Pistol's day, and teams could - some did - slow the game down just to keep the ball away from him.
