Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith has become known for stirring debates and igniting controversies around a wide range of basketball topics, from the NBA to college hoops.

His outspoken nature and larger-than-life persona have garnered him both admiration and criticism over the years.

Recently, he has found himself at the center of attention yet again, this time for initiating a debate around two of women’s basketball’s most buzzed-about names: Caitlin Clark and JuJu Watkins.

Critics claim that Smith has gone too far in pitting these two rising stars against each other and has oversimplified their respective journeys.

Others believe that any attention brought to women’s basketball is welcome, even if the debate comes off as somewhat contrived. Yet the question remains: why is Smith under fire, and is the backlash deserved?

Much of the ire directed at Smith originates from his eagerness to compare two players who, according to many experts and fans, operate under very different circumstances.

Caitlin Clark has already cemented her legacy in the college game, dazzling spectators with her sharpshooting and playmaking ability at Iowa.

She has proven time and again why she belongs in the conversation of top collegiate players. JuJu Watkins, on the other hand, is a newer name to some casual fans, but among avid followers of high school and youth basketball, she is far from unknown.

Hailing from Sierra Canyon School in California, Watkins entered the college basketball scene with a passionate following, becoming one of the highest-rated recruits in the country and committing to the USC Trojans to start her collegiate career.

The problem, as many see it, lies in the fact that Smith tried to pit the two players against each other as though their accomplishments thus far can be measured on the same scale.

Clark has already racked up collegiate accolades, set records, and led her team on deep tournament runs. Watkins, while unquestionably skilled and brimming with potential, is just at the start of her college journey. Critics suggest that stoking a rivalry this early might be detrimental, or at the very least, premature.

They point out that it could create unnecessary pressure on Watkins, who is still adjusting to the demands of top-tier NCAA basketball, as well as overshadow the distinct storylines that each player brings to the table.

On his show, Smith appeared to relish the debate, emphasizing which athlete has the higher ceiling and who could eventually reign as the face of women’s college basketball.

In typical Stephen A. fashion, he declared strong opinions and presented bold predictions. Yet his commentary touched a nerve within the women’s basketball community. Some fans argue that he has a habit of framing discussions in a zero-sum way—if one player is deemed superior, the other must be lacking.

Detractors feel this approach is unfair to Clark and Watkins, who could very well coexist as superstar talents in the sport without needing to be pitted against one another in a combative framework.

Many who follow women’s basketball closely have taken to social media to voice their displeasure, accusing Smith of reducing a nuanced discussion about two distinct talents into a “hot-take” spectacle.

They claim that the conversation undermines the depth of the women’s game, and that it might deter casual fans from understanding each player’s unique strengths.

Instead of focusing on the artistry of Clark’s deep-range shooting or Watkins’ explosive athleticism and nascent skill set, casual observers might come away with the impression that the two are locked in a heated rivalry.

Critics caution that this simplistic storyline can overshadow the broader context of growth and collaboration within women’s basketball.

Some, however, see a silver lining in the attention the debate has generated. Women’s sports often struggle for equal media coverage, and part of the reason the WNBA and NCAA women’s basketball have gained traction in recent years is the heightened visibility of star players like Clark and others.

If Stephen A. Smith’s polarizing conversations result in more eyeballs on the women’s game, could this not be considered a step in the right direction, at least for exposure?

Proponents of that viewpoint argue that any debate, even one that may come across as forced, can serve as a gateway for more fans to discover the sport.

The real question is whether the conversation can be steered toward celebrating both players, rather than hastily deciding whose legacy will shine brighter.

Another layer to this controversy is the nature of sports media itself. Smith is no stranger to inciting heated debates, a strategy that has played a significant role in elevating his career. His signature style is to deliver take after take with passion, sometimes at the expense of nuance.

This model has driven the success of shows like ESPN’s “First Take,” where debates create viral clips and trending hashtags. However, critics argue that placing the same polarizing approach on young women athletes who are still carving out their identities in the game may cause unforeseen negative consequences.

The conversation might inadvertently spark negative comparisons and place disproportionate burdens on Clark and Watkins to meet newly minted expectations.

Caitlin Clark’s story is already one of overcoming skepticism. She burst onto the college scene at Iowa, quickly establishing herself as a force capable of dropping triple-doubles while hitting shots from NBA ranges.

Meanwhile, JuJu Watkins carries the weight of being an elite recruit, often compared to legends of the game before she’s even laced up for a college tip-off.

Each player deserves the chance to define her own path, facing challenges and celebrating victories without persistent chatter about living up to or surpassing another talent’s accolades.

The general consensus, then, is that Smith’s debate might not do justice to the complexity and depth of women’s basketball.

Rather than fostering a healthy discussion that boosts recognition for both Clark and Watkins, the debate can come across as an attempt to provoke fan bases and rake in views.

Few can deny that Smith’s engagement with the women’s game helps put it in a broader spotlight. If done correctly, the conversation could help highlight the dynamic nature of players like Clark and Watkins, exposing new fans to the excitement of women’s basketball. However, framing the topic around forced rivalry is where the trouble begins.

Social media chatter has placed Smith squarely in the dock, demanding he adjust his approach. Influential voices on platforms like Twitter and Instagram have called on him to delve deeper into the uniqueness of each player.

Many argue that women’s basketball deserves coverage that goes beyond surface-level comparisons, urging established commentators to talk about the growth of the league, the role of coaches, and the broader context in which these young women play.

They also suggest spotlighting the community aspects of college sports, the camaraderie among players, and the sacrifice and dedication that go into becoming an elite athlete.

Some seasoned analysts who follow women’s basketball closely see a teachable moment here. Rather than dismissing Smith outright, they suggest that he and other mainstream commentators educate themselves more thoroughly on the intricacies of the women’s game.

This could involve speaking to coaches, current players, and WNBA veterans to gain insight into the pathways young athletes like Clark and Watkins have traversed to reach their standing.

By doing so, Smith might lead more informed conversations that not only spark fan interest but also deepen respect for these athletes and the history of women’s basketball.

The athletes themselves have taken different approaches when asked about such comparisons.

Clark, whose focus remains on elevating Iowa’s program and preparing for the WNBA, often deflects attempts to frame her as a rival to anyone. Her approach underscores a desire to grow the game and collaborate with her peers rather than tear each other down.

Watkins, at the start of her collegiate journey, has largely stayed away from public commentary on such debates. She seems more intent on adjusting to a new system, a new set of coaches, and the rigors of being a freshman in a competitive NCAA environment.

Ultimately, the conversation might boil down to a culture clash within sports media. Outlets that prioritize highlights, bold takes, and star-driven narratives are frequently at odds with the desire to tell more nuanced stories.

Women’s basketball, still fighting to gain the full attention it deserves, has a vested interest in elevating its top players without reducing them to clickbait controversies.

This delicate balance is evident in how fans have responded to Stephen A. Smith, questioning whether his style can be adapted to better serve the women’s game.

Time will tell whether Smith modifies his approach or doubles down on the polarizing style that has made him successful.

As Caitlin Clark continues her storied run in college basketball and JuJu Watkins begins hers, the ongoing developments in their careers will likely fuel more conversation. If that conversation is steered thoughtfully, it could energize new fans and broaden the audience for women’s hoops.

However, if it persists in focusing on simplistic rivalries, many fear it could misrepresent both athletes’ journeys, overshadowing their individual contributions to the sport. For now, Stephen A. Smith finds himself at the center of that debate, and the pressure is on him to decide how to navigate it going forward.