December 01, 2003

Abolish sports honor votes?: No more Heisman? No more MVP's? No more ROY's? CNNSI's Phil Taylor must be smoking pot.
More inside...

posted by lilnemo to culture at 04:05 PM - 9 comments

Phil is stretching here. We can all agree that there have been some real injustices in regards to sports rewards that rely on fan or even Pro writer voting. But to eliminate them all? That's asinine. Sports awards serve two purposes.

  1. To honor an athelete for outstanding achievement(s) in their respective sport.
  2. To spark discussion regarding the sport in question.

MLB really preys on reason #2 by stretching out the naming of awards winners through the off season. Does anyone agree with Phil? Would you like to see change in the voting process? If so, in what? The voters? The rules?

posted by lilnemo at 04:12 PM on December 01

I would have to disagree with Taylor on this one. Sure there have been some screwups in voting, but basing everything on statistical output (which he suggests) has gotten professional sport into more of a mess than poor voting ever will.

posted by smithers at 05:17 PM on December 01

I'd just like to see the voters (writers or GMs or coaches or whatever) be held accountable for who they voted for, and if a voter consistantly goes coo-coo-for-cocoa-puffs on his votes (I'm looking at you, Mr.-Gave-Jeter-A-2nd-Place-MVP-Vote-in-2003!), he could be dropped from the voting group. Keep the ballots secret until they are tabulated, but publish the final results, in detail.

posted by grum@work at 06:44 PM on December 01

Weedy, was Taylor hanging with you last week?

posted by billsaysthis at 07:54 PM on December 01

Taylor's wildly incosistent as a writer, he always seems to me to be adopting strangely contrarian positions for the sake of it. Blows so hot and cold. Billy - I mean, I smoke pot, but did you read that article? Taylor's lovin' some kinda crack-smack hybrid. Smrack - the kids'l love it.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:01 PM on December 01

I dunno, Weedy, there's a lot to be said for awards that are awarded on purely statistical bases. I think it's better to reward the guy who actually scored the most goals in a year, not the guy the sportswriters thought should have. (Also, I think they should give out a Lady Bong award for most unsportsmanlike, but I digress.) I should say though, I don't have a big problem with voted awards, they certainly give us more to talk about.

posted by alex_reno at 02:10 AM on December 02

Weedy, not being quite the gourmand of mind-altering substances, I defer to your superior judgment.

posted by billsaysthis at 11:23 AM on December 02

Maybe we should hand out our own awards? Instead of best we should hand out awards for the worst. Worst free agent signing Worst Coach It's not all about the benjamins (for players that have a bad season on the last year of their contract). Worst Announcer (The Crikey) Any other ideas?

posted by mick at 12:17 PM on December 02

This article sounds to me like an idea you keep in the bottom of the bin for when you don't have an idea and the deadline be looming: I don't think Taylor really enlightened me at all. It's like the old argument about "the team" in most valuable player: that should then really be some some blood-and-guts character guy (like Gary Roberts or Mike Keane, say), rather than the goal scorer. Twenty years ago someone said that Wayne Gretzky should be voted the Norris Trophy (or at least the Selke) because he scored so many goals that he demoralised the other team, best defense being a good offense and all that.

posted by Philfromhavelock at 02:08 PM on December 02

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.