National player of the year race: The case for/against the top 4 contenders
The national player of the year race is heating up as teams close out the regular season and enter tournament time. Every game and performance has the ability to sway voters. In the last few weeks alone, two top POY contenders went head-to-head, another guided her team to a signature victory and a fourth fell flat for the first time this year.
There is a case to be made for and against each of USC's JuJu Watkins, UCLA's Lauren Betts, Notre Dame's Hannah Hidalgo and UConn's Paige Bueckers. Bueckers is the only former Naismith and Wooden Award winner playing this season. She became the first freshman to win it in 2021. NCAA all-time scoring champion Caitlin Clark won the 2023 and 2024 Naismith and Wooden Awards. South Carolina's Aliyah Boston won in 2022.
The four players were named to the Naismith Midseason Team and Wooden Award Late Midseason Top 20 watchlist announced earlier this month. The Naismith Award watchlist will whittle down to 10 semifinalists on March 13 and four finalists on March 24. The winner will be named on April 2 ahead of the Final Four in Tampa. The Wooden Award will be presented on April 11, between the NCAA championship game and WNBA Draft.
Case for: Betts arguably holds the position of 'best and most important player on the best team.' UCLA won 23 games before taking its first loss and spent 12 weeks at No. 1. That success is largely attributable to Betts' two-way performance.
Since the junior 6-foot-7 center draws double- and triple-teams in the post, her footwork, patience and improved passing ability is crucial. Instead of immediately taking it up herself off the entry pass or on an offensive rebound, she has a better understanding of where the open teammate will be for an uncontested attempt. The team field goal percentage jumped nine percentiles from a season ago and ranks sixth (48.5%).
Just as important is her rim protection and paint patrol. She forces opposing players to alter their shots, and when they dare come at her, she denies them. She secured at least four blocks in eight games and set the program record with nine against Baylor. The Bruins pivot around Betts as their fulcrum on both ends, an impact that can't be understated in a NPOY race.
Case against: The disadvantage for Betts in the race is a tale as old as the awards themselves. She's a traditional center without the pizazz and highlight-reel worthy displays of a guard.
The statistics are strong, but few stand out as superior. Brittney Griner won back-to-back NPOY awards at Baylor and A'ja Wilson won in 2018 by ranking top-10 in three categories, including scoring. Iowa big Megan Gustafson led the nation in scoring and efficiency, and was third in rebounding. And though Aliyah Boston wasn't a heavy scorer when she won in 2022, she ranked fourth in rebounds and led South Carolina to the national title.
UCLA has not played too many contenders this season and when it did, Betts performed short of the NPOY standards set by her peers.
To improve her stock: There will be at least one more chance for Betts to put on a showcase against a fellow national player of the year contender. UCLA hosts Watkins and USC on Saturday. They might also meet again in the Big Ten Tournament. If Betts leads UCLA to a strong NCAA tournament showing, it will work in her favor as it did for Boston.
Regular season schedule: at Wisconsin, vs. USC
Case for: Few match Bueckers' efficiency (59.9 effective field goal percentage) and ball control. When on the court, she's been consistent across the board for UConn and her numbers are in line with her 2021 Naismith and Wooden wins as a freshman. She's a versatile guard who fills the holes of what the Huskies need.
There's one key differentiator working in her favor: turnovers. She simply does not turn the ball over. Against Tennessee, which forces an average of 23 per game, Bueckers coughed it up just once. She cut her turnovers in half from the 2.5 she averaged as a freshman, her one red mark over 3½ seasons as a Husky. She ranks sixth in assist/turnover ratio (3.64), a career-best over the 2.43 a season ago.
Case against: Playing in the Big East is a knock on Bueckers' case when it's this close. Whereas the other contenders on this list play nine to 11 conference teams ranked within the top 50 in NET, UConn faces just one (Creighton, NET 31). For that type of competition, her contributions could be greater. She doesn't rank even top-50 in any major category.
And in the big-time non-conference contests, Bueckers hasn't had the scoring touch from distance or the patented aggressiveness to take over for the Huskies. She missed all four 3s in a loss to Notre Dame, went 2-of-8 against USC and, although she was more efficient in the win over South Carolina, she went 1-of-7 from inside the arc for the second time this season. Those types of performances won't win an award.
To improve her stock: Because Bueckers set the bar high as a freshman, she has to considerably level up annually. That's tough with improving parity and increasingly stellar player performances. The redshirt senior needs powerful offensive showcases in the Big East tournament and beyond to make it a closer contest with the other three on this list.
Regular season schedule: vs. Creighton, vs. Marquette
Case for: In the simplest terms, Hidalgo is a walking bucket and defensive menace. Her ability to consistently pack the stat line is uncanny. She's a few assists and steals shy of repeating an average of 20 points, five rebounds, four assists and four steals in a season. Last year, she became the first to do that since at least 2009-10, the extent of the Her Hoop Stats database.
The 5-6 sophomore is an energetic, dynamic guard whose crisp shooting places her tops in scoring. She's a strong ball-handler with a quick step to blow by defenders and the vision to find teammates if there's a better opportunity.
It's also what makes her a roving defensive problem. She lights up the scoreboard while also guarding the opposing teams' best player and usually picking their pocket a few times. The strongest piece of Hidalgo's case is her performance against the nation's best teams and players. Her numbers actually go up when playing ranked opponents or on major networks. In wins over USC and UConn, she averaged 26.5 points (44.7 FG%), eight rebounds, eight assists and four steals.
Case against: Those performances were from the first two months of the season. Notre Dame hadn't played top competition lately until Sunday's loss to N.C. State. It was one of Hidalgo's subpar showings in a battle of prolific backcourts. It will cast doubt on the strongest piece of her case when she did not score in either overtime period (on merely three attempts) and fouled out.
There's a claim that no one has more assistance offensively than Hidalgo, who has meshed in seamlessly with point guard Olivia Miles after her return from an ACL injury. The duo are each former All-Americans and viable candidates to make the list together this time.
To improve her stock: Notre Dame finishes its regular season with the ACC's top teams, allowing Hidalgo to bounce back onto her trend of playing her best against the best. She will be tasked with showing the NC State game was an anomaly.
Regular season schedule: vs. Florida State, vs. Louisville
Case for: Watkins' bag is deep and she can take over games in an instant with her size, strength and explosiveness. Look no further than a do-it-all showcase to upset former No. 1 UCLA that propelled her back toward the top of the NPOY conversation.
The 6-2 sophomore guard scored 38 of USC's 71 points (including all of the second and third-quarter scoring), but it was her defensive effort that was more impressive as she finished with eight blocks. She ranks first among guards in blocks (96th percentile overall) and is one of three to average more than 1.6 per game. That effort has made USC a top-five defense.
Watkins started the season more efficiently from the field than as a freshman, boosting her 3-point average and cutting turnovers down by 25%. The Trojans rely heavily on her to create and she delivers, particularly off the dribble in isolation.
Case against: Watkins' big-time showing against UCLA was crucial to getting into the race because she fell into a bit of a sophomore slump before it. Efficiency is still lacking in Watkins' game; while she continues to be a top-five Division I scorer, her field goal percentage languishes in the 60th percentile range. Improving her off-ball movement and shooting, as well as focusing on smarter shot selection, will boost those marks.
To improve her stock: Recency bias is real and Watkins has the best shot of any at staying top of mind. The Trojans finish the season at UCLA, where a clutch two-way performance by Watkins could lock up the trophy. Re-igniting her touch from 3-point range throughout the tournament would give her a boost as well.
Regular season schedule: at UCLA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Auburn football is in a two-team race for four-star QB Landon Duckworth
Auburn football is in a two-team race for four-star QB Landon Duckworth In a surprising move, Duckworth is focusing on Auburn and South Carolina ahead of his June 26 commitment date. The future of the Auburn quarterback position could be good hands. On Wednesday night, Hayes Fawcett of On3 reported that 2026 four-star quarterback Landon Duckworth has cut down his list down to two schools, Auburn and South Carolina. Duckworth had upcoming visits to both Florida State and Ole Miss, but, in a surprising move, has canceled both according to the report. Duckworth is currently ranked the No. 6 quarterback for the 2026 class by 247Sports. They also have Duckworth rated the No. 50 overall player and No. 3 in Alabama. Duckworth led the Jackson Aggies to a 14-1 record and a 4A AHSAA State Championship in 2024. They ended the season with a dominating 69-6 victory over Cherokee County to claim the championship. For the season, Duckworth threw for 3,439 yards and 39 touchdowns with a completion percentage of 67%. He also stresses the defense with his running ability. Duckworth rushed for 648 yards and 12 touchdowns. Duckworth is not the only prospect from Jackson that the Tigers are looking to add in 2026. Running back Ezavier Crowell has listed Auburn as one of his top teams. The four-star running back is scheduled to announce his decision on June 26. Auburn is going into this season with Jackson Arnold as the top quarterback. Behind him will be incoming freshman Deuce Knight who impressed during the spring. If the Tigers are able to add Duckworth, the quarterback room will hold more talent than the program has seen in its history. The Auburn 2026 recruiting class is currently ranked 39th with eight commitments. Contact/Follow us @TheAuburnWire on X (Twitter), and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Auburn news, notes, and opinions. You can also follow Phillip on Twitter @PJordanSEC
Wall Street Journal
3 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Schools Can Pay Their Athletes—and College Sports Will Never Be the Same
College sports are dying, college sports are dead, college sports aren't about college anymore—it's Christmas in June for anyone feeling apocalyptic about the state of college sports, now that a settlement has been approved allowing schools to directly pay their athletes. This isn't a salary, technically. This is compensation from schools to athletes for use of their 'name, image, likeness,' but it's not a measly NIL like a burly offensive lineman getting all the bratwurst he can eat. This is a real paycheck, directly from the college. It's really happening—for Division I schools that have opted in. It's set to start July 1. 'A new beginning,' NCAA boss Charlie Baker called it. Is it going to work? Will it cannonball Olympic and nonrevenue sports? How does it square with Title IX? Will it withstand legal challenges? Will it all fall apart? I have no idea! Neither does anyone else! Hold on to your helmets, everyone. We're all jumping off the diving board together. (I will now pause 90 seconds for you to climb the ladder and jump off the diving board with the rest of us.) The settlement of this class action—House vs. NCAA, in which current and former athletes sought name, image and likeness opportunities and a share of athletic department revenue—had been in the works for a while. On Friday, a federal judge signed off on the $2.6 billion settlement, which includes back pay to litigants but also creates a revenue-sharing system 'in which each Division I school will be able to distribute roughly $20 million a year to their athletes,' the Journal reported. That's right. Colleges can chop up $20 million and split it among their jocks. It will take some getting used to. Naturally, the revenue sharing is already provoking some to bemoan the demise of 'amateurism' and the college sports landscape. But schools have to be oblivious to not see who's to blame: They are! College sports did this to itself. The NCAA and its member schools set professionalization into motion with decades of arrogance and denial about the bountiful but warped economy they built around the games we love to watch. When college sports started chasing every dollar as a market-driven business—and frankly, there's a case that college sports has always been a business—paying athletes became inevitable. The bigger the money got, the harder the system was to defend. When college sports started indulging in the $10 million dollar coach, the billion-dollar television deal, the megabuck locker rooms and the assistant to the assistant strength coach making more than a surgeon, the hypocrisy was easy to see. Everyone was making a buck, except the talent on the field. It's why the Supreme Court more or less reacted to the NCAA's claims of amateur status with the following: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Public opinion shifted, too. A decade ago, I'd write about proposals to pay athletes and I could hear the jeering a mile away. Boooooooo! That's not what college sports are about, man! Eventually, those big-dollar media deals, private jets and Pop-Tart Bowls caught up with college sports. It was hard to argue there was anything amateurish about it anymore. Now schools will have to figure it out for themselves. I mean that literally: schools and conferences are navigating a new wilderness in which they are permitted to directly compensate athletes—but without a precedent or a clear road map. Yikes. We do know a few things: The bulk of those $20 million allotments are expected to go to high-revenue sports like football and men's basketball—that's where the money's coming from, after all. Other beneficiaries may be growing sports like women's basketball and softball. The settlement also attempts to inject some calm into the craziness around name, image and likeness. The revenue sharing payments will come from the schools, and third party NIL deals over $600 will be subject to review by 'NIL Go,' an oversight group overseen by Deloitte. The idea here is to put outside NIL deals under a microscope—find out what player deals are legitimate arrangements, and what are booster largesses masquerading as NIL. Good luck! Enforcement will be a headache. So will the invariable league challenges. Defenders of the settlement maintain it shouldn't be entangled with Title IX protections against gender discrimination. Already there are parties who want to argue. Also unknown is the impact on nonrevenue Olympic sports. Do schools start eliminating or rolling back certain sports because they're not big contributors to the bottom line? Possible! We'll see. The new setup isn't free of denial, either. While colleges are now entitled to pay athletes, the system still resists the idea that athletes are employees. Good luck with that, too. There will likely be challenges to the revenue sharing system—is the proportion of revenue (22 percent) given to athletes a fair amount, or should it be renegotiated? Is it tantamount to a salary cap? It's hard to not see this heading in the direction of classifying athletes as employees, and eventually, collective bargaining. If you're lying down on a couch right now with a bag of ice on your head, I understand. It's a lot. It's confusing. Imagine being an athletic director in 2025. No job has changed more. A new day is here. It might not be the apocalypse, but college sports will never be the same. Write to Jason Gay at
New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
The college sports employment case that looms as the NCAA's next pivotal court battle
The final settlement of the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit is a huge relief to college sports. It's the start of a new economic model and a chance for college sports leaders to show legislators and the public they are capable of change. Here is what it is not: The end of their legal troubles. Throughout the final stretch of this case, many involved have pointed to the next big one coming down the pike. Johnson vs. NCAA, which has been moving through the courts for almost six years now, gets into one of the thorniest issues in college sports: employment. It could be a clarifying win for the NCAA, or it could be the case that hastens the big changes many have predicted — football breaking away from the rest of college sports, and a football Super League. Advertisement In February 2019, Ralph 'Trey' Johnson, a former running back at Villanova, sued the NCAA and nearly a dozen schools, claiming that athletes should be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case has slowly wound through the system, growing to include other former athletes while NCAA efforts to have the case dismissed have been swatted away. Essentially, the Johnson side argues that the NCAA and its schools have gotten away for decades — and continue to do so, even in the age of name, image and likeness payments and revenue sharing — with having athletes take part in a relationship that has all the appearances of employment, without paying them an hourly wage. 'Athletes should have the same, limited student employee status as classmates selling popcorn at NCAA games,' said Paul McDonald, the lead lawyer for the Johnson side. The NCAA argues that the arrangement has worked for decades, benefits athletes and still works for them, especially with NIL, revenue sharing and cost-of-attendance payments added to the pile. But the organization also seems to acknowledge this as another challenge to the system, and hopes it can be solved through federal legislation rather than the courts. 'The NCAA is making changes to deliver more financial benefits to student-athletes but there are issues such as employment that can only be addressed by Congress,' the NCAA said in a statement to The Athletic this spring. 'The Association looks forward to working with student-athletes and lawmakers to set a stable, and sustainable future for all 500,000 student-athletes.' The case could go to trial as early as next year. There's always a chance the NCAA and the plaintiffs will settle, as in the House case, which leads to new rules and perhaps collective bargaining. But for now, both sides seem dug in. McDonald sees this as a civil rights and fairness issue, and asks why athletes aren't treated the same as student concession stand workers, teaching assistants or any student who does work for the university and is considered an employee. Those students are usually paid hourly, often minimum wage, because they are performing a job. McDonald argues athletes should have the same 'equal treatment' to classmates in work-study student employment, some of whom are also on academic scholarships that don't preclude them from earning a wage. Advertisement 'This would be easy to implement using NCAA-mandated timesheets, and affordable on hourly, minimum wage scales — particularly if colleges stop overpaying some coaches,' McDonald said. 'Colleges have never explained why they oppose this easy and equitable solution.' Johnson filed his case before the NIL and revenue sharing eras began, but McDonald argues that should have no impact: While NIL payments are based on an individual's popularity and revenue sharing rewards a sport's popularity, all athletes should be deemed employees because they are performing a job. For several reasons, colleges and universities are very much against employment. There's the culture of college athletics, the idea that these are students seeking a degree and also playing sports, rather than paid athletes. Some cynics say there's a measure of control involved too, especially with the coach-player dynamic. And of course, there's the money. Every employee has a salary and other costs attached, and paying them all hourly wages would wreck budgets. The SEC and a group of education associations filed an amicus brief in the Johnson case, warning that only 2 percent of NCAA member schools generate enough revenue to cover operating costs. 'If colleges and universities are forced to pay their student-athletes (as employees) it is inevitable that many schools will simply eliminate athletics teams, with non-revenue sports teams the most likely to be on the chopping block,' the brief read. The other possible result: The richest schools pulling away from the rest of the NCAA, as the disparity between the haves and have-nots widens. Every school, even the big brands, is adjusting costs and chasing more revenue to pay for revenue sharing. Employment for athletes could prompt another wave of cost-adjusting and revenue-chasing. Advertisement Preventing athletes from being employees has been a central focus of the NCAA in federal legislation, and the House of Representatives' Education and Workforce committee plans to work to codify that restriction as part of a set of bills in the works from three House committees this week. Of course, any federal law could still be challenged in the courts, which is why outside observers think this will still be settled there. What constitutes employment can be a complicated issue, including various tests. Does the employer have the right to hire and fire the employee? Does the employer set rules and working hours? How much day-to-day supervision is involved? There have been court cases before on employment status, but none quite like this. 'In the employment law world, you have employees and you have non-employees. There's only two buckets,' said Josh Nadreau, an employment lawyer in Massachusetts who has advised some schools on employment issues. 'And I think with respect to looking at student athletes, to try to put them into this two-bucket paradigm is complicated.' There could be a lesson in what the Third Circuit said last year when it denied the NCAA's attempt to dismiss the case. The circuit court judges devised a test to determine whether athletes are employees, which could lead to different conclusions about athletes in revenue versus non-revenue sports. 'They're not subject to the same pressures, they're not subject to the same economic forces,' Nadreau said. 'I think at some point we'll start drawing circles around different groups, some will be employees and some will not.' For many, that's the clean solution, but McDonald is not distinguishing between sports in his arguments. Field hockey players, though their sport is not a revenue driver, also work hard and compete for their school, serving essentially as brand ambassadors, and have expectations from their coaches. Meanwhile, the NCAA has expressed no interest in granting hourly wages to any athletes, even those in football and basketball, hoping the House settlement's revenue-sharing structure shows that athletes are now being sufficiently paid. One final caveat: Expecting this to play out the same way as the House case ignores that it has a different lawyer and is also starting on the opposite coast. The House case, led by Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, went before the same federal judge, Claude Wilken, in California, who oversaw the Alston case (also led by Berman and Kessler) that eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against the NCAA's ability to cap education-related benefits. The Johnson case was filed in Pennsylvania, which the Third Circuit oversees, so it could proceed predominantly on the East Coast. Advertisement But unless and until the case makes it to the Supreme Court — or gets settled — there could still be more lawsuits and differing rulings. The result could be a mish-mash of laws, with athletes' employment statuses depending on where you live. 'The question of common sense comes down to who's deciding,' Nadreau said. 'What some people might say is common sense might be different than the rest of the country.'
