Recency bias is hardly recent, a phenomenon hard wired in us to favor the experiences new to our memories over anything historical. It’s like how yesterday’s halfcourt shot is remembered more fondly than some ancient decade’s worth of championships.

Nowhere else is recency bias more biased than in the case of Caitlin Clark, the otherwise wonderful women’s basketball player at Iowa, a young woman many national pundits have anointed as the greatest women’s college basketball player ever, or the “GOAT.”

Many such opinions appear to be coming from younger and allegedly hipper media members who either never watched Diana Taurasi or whose comments are fully supported by their own opinions. Straight up: Caitlin Clark is no more the GOAT in women’s college basketball than the man whose record she just broke, Pete Maravich, is to men’s basketball.

A partial list of men’s college basketball players better than Pete Maravich: Lew Alcindor, Bill Walton, Oscar Robertson, Elvin Hayes, Tim Duncan, Christian Laettner, Bill Bradley, Jerry Lucas and Bill Russell. Maravich was an elite offensive player. The aforementioned were better overall players. Quibble with that list all you’d like. But the overall point remains.

A partial list of women’s basketball players better than Clark: Taurasi, Maya Moore, Breanna Stewart, Candace Parker, Cheryl Miller and Tamika Catchings. There are others. But you get the idea. Just because Clark has more points than they do doesn’t make her a better player.

A more cynical fellow might curse that wretched eye test and apologize for committing the sin of recalling the beauty we saw far better than people today can visualize it from reading their analytics. But then, that’s a more cynical fellow.

During the day Monday, I watched Andraya Carter and Monica McNutt on ESPN conclude that Clark is the GOAT because she doesn’t have the talent surrounding her that Taurasi had. I’d remind them that Taurasi has three more national championships than Clark does, one of which came in 2003 with Maria Conlon as the point guard.

I mentioned this on social media the other night and was bemused by the number of commenters who failed reading comprehension rallying to Conlon’s defense. Hardly the point. The point was to illustrate that Taurasi quarterbacked a national championship team without elite talent around her, too.

Yes, the 2003 team had Barbara Turner, Ann Strother and Willnett Crockett, all of whom made the WNBA. They’d never make it in today’s more competitive WNBA. And they didn’t merely fail to win a national championship after Taurasi left, they never made a Final Four. UConn didn’t do that again until Moore showed up. Coincidence? Hardly.

Other pundits decided that Clark would clinch the GOAT distinction if Iowa wins this season’s national title. No more room for debate. Perhaps in their minds, there isn’t. This is because they’re not old enough to have seen Taurasi play. Taurasi has become the greatest women’s basketball player in the history of the world, adding to her college resume with gold medals and WNBA titles. She also remains as the college game’s greatest player as well.

But if your opinion is Moore, Stewart, Parker, Catchings or Miller, there will be no arguments from this corner. It’s just not Caitlin Clark. There are other factors to determine the GOAT than offense.

Notez bien: This is not meant to condemn Clark in any way. This is to condemn the keepers of the gate who need a deeper understanding of their subject matter. You cannot possibly be considered an expert on women’s basketball and think that Clark — all those points notwithstanding — is better than Taurasi. Or Stewart, a forward with guard skills who was part of four national championship teams.

Clark has been wonderful for the women’s game. The most recognizable player in an era when the game has never been more recognizable. Clark has been responsible for the country to become acquainted with Lynette Woodard and Pearl Moore, among others, the pioneers whose sacrifices helped make this possible.

It’s just that stories like Clark’s need to come with their own sense of proportion. Recency bias appears to take proportion and body slam it from the top rope. It ought to be the job of the media to be mindful of that. And the best way to bring proportion to any story is to open a history book and understand the significance of who came before you.

Unless it’s too much trouble.

Either way, I hope you, the good fans of Connecticut, on whose backs the game went national, can see through some of this idiocy. Just try not to hate Clark. Not her fault. It’s the people telling the story that don’t get it.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro