Stephen A. Smith is no stranger to controversy, but his latest hot take might be one of his most divisive yet. On a recent episode of First Take, the outspoken ESPN analyst launched into an impassioned monologue, suggesting that JuJu Watkins—the dynamic sophomore guard for the USC Trojans—deserves to be talked about “the same way we talked about Caitlin Clark.” The reaction was swift, brutal, and widespread.

The basketball world erupted. Fans, analysts, and even former players accused Smith of forcing a narrative that doesn’t yet exist. At the heart of the backlash is a simple question: Is it fair—or even logical—to compare an up-and-coming NCAA talent like Watkins to Caitlin Clark, a generational superstar who has already broken records, redefined the women’s game, and transitioned seamlessly into the WNBA spotlight?

Smith’s argument wasn’t completely baseless. He praised Watkins’ scoring ability, her explosiveness, and her potential to become the next household name in women’s basketball. “This sister’s got game,” he said, pointing to her shot creation and driving ability. “She is spectacular.” But the problem wasn’t what he said—it was how far he took it.

“When are we going to start talking about her the same way we talked about Caitlin Clark?” Smith asked, as if media attention were a cosmic force beyond his control. The irony? He is the media. Few people in the sports industry have more power to shape narratives than Stephen A. Smith. He determines topics, segments, and headlines on one of the most-watched sports shows in the country. If Watkins isn’t getting enough love from national outlets, Smith needs only to look in the mirror.

Critics pointed out the obvious: Caitlin Clark isn’t just a great player—she’s already made history. In four years at Iowa, Clark racked up 67 double-doubles, 17 triple-doubles, and over 3,900 points. She shattered records, led the nation in scoring and assists, and carried the Iowa Hawkeyes to back-to-back Final Four appearances. She didn’t just score—she transformed women’s basketball into a national spectacle.

Comparing that to Watkins, who has had a solid but not yet historic career at USC, feels like comparing a rising indie artist to Beyoncé. Watkins is talented, no doubt. She’s aggressive, efficient in the paint, and has a scoring mentality that screams future star. But as of now, her résumé doesn’t come close to Clark’s.

Let’s talk numbers.

Through her first 62 NCAA games, Watkins posted 1,604 points, 436 rebounds, and 214 assists. Respectable numbers by any metric. But when you stack that against Clark’s first 62 games—1,662 points, 433 rebounds, and a jaw-dropping 471 assists—the gap becomes hard to ignore. That’s more than double the playmaking output, and it shows just how differently these two players impact their teams. Clark doesn’t just score—she runs the offense.

Even in shooting efficiency, the numbers speak volumes. Clark shot 46% from the field and 37% from beyond the arc during her college career. Watkins, meanwhile, currently sits at 41% from the field and about 33% from deep. Those percentages matter, especially when attempting high-volume shots. Clark also hit 87% from the free throw line, compared to Watkins’ 84%.

Then there’s the stat that truly separates them: triple-doubles. Clark had 17 in college. Watkins? Zero. She’s had 15 double-doubles, compared to Clark’s 67. These aren’t minor gaps—they’re canyons.

When Smith lamented that Watkins doesn’t get the same media love, many called foul—not because Watkins isn’t deserving of attention, but because it felt like Smith was manufacturing a rivalry for ratings rather than letting it develop organically.

“Caitlin Clark has already crossed the finish line, set the record, and waved at the crowd,” one analyst wrote. “JuJu is still lacing up her shoes.”

There’s also the matter of style of play. Clark’s game stretches defenses to their breaking point. Her deep three-point range forces defenders to guard her at half-court. Her passes—often compared to those of Peyton Manning—create scoring chances that wouldn’t exist otherwise. She warps the floor.

Watkins, on the other hand, thrives in the paint. She’s physical, explosive, and relentless. But her game hasn’t yet shown the same perimeter versatility or playmaking command. She scores, yes—but she doesn’t bend the game like Clark does.

And that’s the frustration. Instead of letting Watkins grow into her own identity, Smith’s comments boxed her into a narrative she hasn’t earned yet. In the rush to find “the next Caitlin Clark,” the media risks doing a disservice to both players. Watkins isn’t Clark—and that’s okay. She deserves to be celebrated on her own terms.

Even Clark’s fiercest fans admit that Watkins is one to watch. But trying to elevate her by forcing a comparison with someone already redefining the sport? That’s where the backlash begins.

This isn’t about tearing down Watkins. It’s about demanding a higher standard from media voices who shape public perception. Stephen A. Smith knows exactly what he’s doing. He didn’t stumble into this debate—he orchestrated it. And in doing so, he turned what could have been a celebration of a rising star into a controversial headline.

Let JuJu Watkins shine without being forced into someone else’s spotlight. Let Caitlin Clark continue her historic path without being dragged into a rivalry she didn’t ask for. And let’s hold the media accountable when it chooses virality over value.

So the next time someone asks, “Why aren’t we talking about Watkins the way we talk about Clark?”—the answer is simple. Because they’re not in the same chapter yet. Clark has already written hers in bold ink. Watkins is still picking up the pen.