SI Sportsman of the Year

Which still gives them a losing playoff record against the Pats in the Dungy era. He may be the greatest guy in the world (and I don't want to get into his anti-gay marriage stance), but at the end of the day, he is an excellent coach, but not the best coach in the NFL.

Dungy may serve as an inspiration to others of his race, but it is not as if his race has been an impediment to getting NFL jobs. He was a defensive coordinator while in his 20s and I think that he was a head coach by the time that he was 40. And a head coach for the second time by the time that he was 45 or so. His race is simply irrelevant to his achievements.

 

So we're going to judge a fine writer by the fact that she now shares a magazine with Stuart Scott, or that it's editors turn the magazine over to players once a year?

That is so ridiculous I don't know what to say. SI held standards for this award in the past. In the past two years, it has eschewed them in order to sell as many magazines as possible.

And Web, for all the greatness that Favre has shown this season, he isn't even the best QB in the league right now.

This award smacks of who's flavor of the month, with the accomplishments of the first two-thirds of the year completely forgotten.

 

Seems like most of the the people who have a hard time with this pick either don't understand the criteria or want to change it. It does not matter if Dungy is not the best coach in the NFL or if Favre is not the best QB. The award is not for being the best at what you do, it's for a combination of sportsmanship and achievement. Belichick may be a superior coach to Dungy, for instance, but in light of the Patriots' cheating scandal, there is no way on earth that he's more deserving of SOY. Favre might not be having as good a year as Brady, but he's a star who didn't take the easy way out and just retire and wait for Canton to call, but put in the effort to return to a level of play no one ever thought he would reach again. Perfecly reasonable pick.

And BTW, Webster, I'm sure Tony Dungy, who was converted from QB to safety since that's what happened to black QBs coming into the NFL in those days, and who was brought in for many token interviews before the worst franchise in the league finally took a chance on him, would love to know that his race has been irrelevant to his success.

 

I'm curious about something. How many of the people who are against Favre's pick actually read the SI article. I think it's a pretty good justification of their choice.

I still argue that Sid the Kid should have had serious consideration and not just for the scoring records and his Art Ross and Hart trophies.

He did what Mario did twenty something years ago: he saved a sports franchise and the Baby Jesus has done it with grace, class and a maturity well beyond his years.

That said, no one in the US gives a shit about hockey so what would be the point?

 

Yes, read it, fine piece. But when you're writing any piece like this, whether it be for an All-County player of the year or SI's sportsman of the year, isn't the piece going to tell you in a major way why the person was selected and justify it?

 

I'd say we're going to judge someone's credentials for criticizing a rival magazine on grounds that they person's own magazine regularly throws to the ground and dances upon.
By your standards -- flavor of the month and all that -- no NFL player could ever win.

 

So we're going to hold one writer responsible for the editorial decisions of those above her? Nice. Does this just apply for ESPN, or should Whitlock be responsible for everything that happens at Foxsports.com, or Friedman everything that happens at CBC?

And by my standards, I'm nominating a figure from the NFL. So how could, under my standars, could someone from the NFL never win the award? You are now just being obtuse.

 

Although this is not my fight, I would say this, GB: Jemele is of course not responsible for all the actions of her employer, but it is more than a little ironic for someone from ESPN to criticize another news organization for making marketing-based decisions. ESPN is the undisputed heavyweight champ in that category.

 

And that I have no problem with. But to say she can't comment like the rest of us on who should have won this award because of who her employer happens to be is wrong.

I have a question: If Ms. Hill was still at the Orlando Sentinel, would anyone have had a problem with her commenting on the award?

 

Probably not as much, and the fact that she works for a competing publication means she does have a stake more directly than most of us. It doesn't mean that she is wrong or that she isn't entitled to her opinion. I happen to agree with the part about SI basing this award on marketing (I think Federer might be a good choice) and posted before I saw her comment although it did precede my post.