SI Sportsman of the Year

Complete and utter horseshit choice. FACT.

The reality is that at the end of last season (which was at the beginning of this year), Bret Favre was pulling the usual "will I retire, will I not" crap. He was playing horribly and his team was in a situation that looked like they needed to be completely rebuilt.

Now, because the start of this season has been fairly good for him, largely because those around him are better, we are greeted with the great Favre suck-off. Wonderful.

Peyton Manning would be an infinitely better choice. He won the Super Bowl earlier this year by overcoming the Patriots.

David Beckham would be an infinitely better choice. The guy has been flying around the world to play and drawn so much attention to a sport that everything around the guy has been debated.

Alex Rodriguez would be a better choice. The guy had a monster season not just a very good first part of the season.

Roger Federer would be an infinitely greater choice. If not for his utter dominance in Wimbledon and just about everything else he does (aside from The French) for the fact that he's been so good for so long.

I get the whole selling of magazines thing. However, this choice is extremely pathetic.

 

Got me to thinking ... how about Roger Goodell for his bid to clean up the NFL? Has anyone had a bigger impact this year, particularly in their first year on the job?

 

Last season has nothing to do with this year as far as Favre and the Packers go since their season ended in December last year. Has no bearing on 2007.

Favre isn't just having a "good first part of the season," either. Twelve games in, he's having the best season of his HOF career. That's nothing to sneeze at. Pastor, you say his team is better this year, despite the fact that the Packers have no running game whatsoever and Favre is making guys like Greg Jennings into household names when he wasn't a blip on the radar last year. There's no doubt Favre is playing better and the fact that the Pack's defense keeps them in games allows him not to force things as he did last year.

As I said earlier, it's tough to give it to a football player when his season isn't over yet.

That said, the award isn't for the most fascinating athlete (for which Bonds would be a runaway winner this year) or the most dominant (Federer, I suppose?). It's awarded to "the athlete or team whose performance that year most embodies the spirit of sportsmanship and achievement." I think Favre pretty well qualifies on both counts.

Manning would have, too, as would the Rockies. But I find it hard to call this a dogshit choice. Only someone who can't stand Favre or is tired of hearing about him can say that. It's a solid choice in an underwhelming year.

 

The reason the choice sucks so bad is that Favre isn't the winning the most football games this year. I am no fan of Tony Romo, but he's playing better than Favre and his team has beaten Favre's. You could also throw in the Patriots and Tom Brady, who are undefeated.

Choosing Favre is like saying that you are going out on a limb (not choosing the most obvious) but taking someone you know will sell magazines. This choice has nothing to do with winning.

 

I would disagree with this statement based on what expectations were entering the season. The over/under on Patriots wins entering the season was 10.5 and after about Week 4, everyone was talking about a perfect season. The over/under for Dallas was 9.5. Both teams were expected to win their division.

The Packers' o/u was set at 6, below every team in their division, including Detroit (6.5). The choice most assuredly had to do with the Packers winning and Favre producing.

Don't get me wrong, it had to do with selling magazines, too -- everything does. But I doubt choosing Romo or Brady would have sold a significantly smaller number of issues, so I don't think that was the decisive factor.

I think there were some other deserving people (whoever mentioned the Rockies gets my vote), but this was far from a dogshit choice that was based only sales and not the standards SI set when it created the award. Favre measures up in all of them, sportsmanship, achievement and, yes, sales.

 

Favre is the Sportsman of September, October and November.
Good thing the rest of the year doesn't count.

All you guys were bitching about Favre's retire/not retire crap in January and February. Now, he's a great choice?

Weak.

 

I never ripped him about that, so I stand by my defense of him as a "solid' choice (not great ... I don't think there were any great choices this year).

And, as far as it being a choice of Sept., Oct., and Nov., well, there's not much you can do about the NFL schedule. If they had selected Manning, for instance, it would have been a choice for three games in January.

If you're going to make the three months argument, and there is some merit to it, you'd more or less have to exclude all NFL players from eligibility, because they'd either get it for three months at the end of the year or one month at the beginning.

 

The Rockies would have been a good choice, but didn't SI give it to the Red Sox in 2004? I'm guessing that they didn't want to give another team award so soon. Also, they just had SL Price's Coolbaugh story not too long ago, so it would be repetitive to come back with another story on that. Doesn't mean the Rockies weren't deserving, but practical considerations probably hurt them.

Dungy or Manning would have worked, too. Doesn't matter that they, or Favre, didn't do anything from February to September. You can be deserving of the award based on a single act, like the high school hoops player with Down's Syndrome (I think) who got hot and hit all those threes last year. Favre is a great story, the legend who appeared to be washed up, but somehow resurrects himself for one last, great run. It's like if Mays came back to hit 40 HRs the year after he fell down in the outfield for the Mets. It's classic, Sportsman of the Year stuff.

 

That was one great article on Favre. Good choice. I'm not a huge NFL fan but I'd have to say he's always been my favourite player.

You could have also made an argument for Sid the Kid.

 

He needs to get his name on a Cup first. And I am a Pittsburgh fanboy saying that.

 

Hitler was awarded the honor because he had successfully rebuilt Germany after WWI. The problem -- and something they didn't know at the time -- was that he made the country economically relavent again by building tanks and guns.
Would that be a Hitler-jack?

 

Remember, this is the SPORTSMAN of the year. As in a good sport. Citizenship counts, which means Bonds, though he is the biggest newsmaker, would certainly not meet the requirements necessary.