MESPN just dropped their 30 greatest WNBA players of all time, and there's a new number one.
LNew number one? Who'd they put over Diana Taurasi?
MThat's the thing — they're not saying yet. The list is out, but the top spot is a mystery until you click.
LOf course it is. Classic ESPN. Make the headline, hide the answer.
MBut here's what we know: it's the 30th season, they voted on the all-time list, and the follow-up piece asks if Angel Reese or Caitlin Clark got votes.
LClark's got to be on there. Rookie of the Year, changed the whole league's visibility. But greatest of all time? That's a different conversation.
MRight, because greatest isn't just stats. It's longevity, titles, impact. Taurasi's got three championships and the scoring record.
LBut if we're talking impact, nobody's touched what Clark did in one season. Attendance, ratings, jersey sales — the whole league shifted.
MImpact and greatness aren't the same thing. You don't put a rookie on the all-time list because she sold jerseys.
LI'm not saying she's number one. I'm saying she belongs in the conversation, and if ESPN left her off entirely, that's a snub.
MThe snub piece is separate. They're asking who got left out. That's where the real fight is.
LMy money's on someone like Tamika Catchings or Lauren Jackson getting disrespected. Ten-time All-Stars, MVPs, and people forget them.
MLauren Jackson's a great call. Three MVPs, two titles, and she did it in the WNBA and overseas. She's underrated in every conversation.
LBut the new number one — that's the headline. Who could jump Taurasi? Maya Moore? Candace Parker?
MParker's got the resume. Two MVPs, a title, and she was the face of the league for a decade. But Taurasi's scoring record is untouchable.
LUntouchable? Clark's on pace to shatter it. She averaged 19 points as a rookie. Taurasi's record is 10,646. Clark could get there in eight years.
MEight years is a long time. And Taurasi's still playing. The record's moving.
LFine, but the point stands: the list is about right now, and right now the league's never been bigger. That's why this ranking matters.
MSpeaking of rankings, Jay Bilas just dropped his top players to watch for college hoops season.
LBilas's list? Let me guess — Duke guys, Kentucky guys, and one mid-major he's trying to look smart about.
MHe's got his usual mix, but the interesting part is the recruiting class rankings. Houston and UConn lead the early top ten for 2027.
LHouston? Kelvin Sampson's still pulling top classes? That program's a machine now.
MAnd UConn's right there. Dan Hurley's got the back-to-back titles, and now he's stacking top recruits. The rich get richer.
LBut here's the thing about recruiting rankings — they're guesses. Half those kids won't pan out. Remember when the number one class was a sure thing?
MEvery year. But Houston and UConn have the development track record. That's what makes them scary.
LMeanwhile, on X, people are still fighting about the college football playoff. One guy says a 24-team playoff is just March Madness now.
MAnd another one says college football doesn't need to be turned into March Madness. The NCAA's got people arguing with themselves.
LThe 12-team format is already here, and half the fans are saying it's perfect, the other half are saying it's too much.
MYou know what? I think the 12-team playoff is the best thing that's happened to college football in years. More games, more stakes, more chaos.
LMore chaos? You mean more blowouts. The first round had three games decided by double digits.
MBut the upsets! The 12-seed took down the 5-seed. That never happens in the old system.
LOne upset doesn't justify a whole new format. The regular season used to mean everything. Now a two-loss team can back into the playoff.
MA two-loss team that won its conference! That's not backing in, that's earning it.
LBut the committee's already shown they'll pick brand names over better teams. That's the problem with expansion.
MSo your solution is what, go back to four teams? Where Alabama and Ohio State get in every year and nobody else has a shot?
LI'm not saying four. I'm saying twelve is too many. Eight would be perfect. Conference champs plus three at-large.
MEight? Then you're leaving out a team like Boise State or SMU that earned a shot. That's the whole point of expansion.
LBut now you're letting in teams that lost three games. That's not a playoff, that's a participation trophy.
MOh, come on. A three-loss team that wins its conference championship game is not getting a participation trophy. They won their way in.
LFine, but the regular season's devalued. That's my point. You can lose to your rival and still make the playoff. That used to be a death sentence.
MAnd now it's a second chance. I'll take that trade every time. More meaningful games in December beats one loss ending your season in October.
LWe're not settling this tonight. But the fans on X are just as split as we are.
MThat's what makes it great. Nobody's bored. And speaking of not bored — Primetime Sports is up next, and they're breaking down tonight's full slate.