SI Sportsman of the Year--Predictions?

Don't forget that Sarah Barracuda was a hell of a point guard in high school.

 

He is in good company with Humphrey Bogart/ Paul Newman / Oliver Stone.

 

Good point. And she sure as hell didn't grow up dreaming of being president. Hell, she wanted to be a sportscaster.

BTW, how much money do you think a charity one-on-one basketball game between Palin and Obama would raise, and who would win?

 

A lot of money, and Obama would just post her up all day under the basket.

 

After the hoops game maybe they can go hunting.

 

read the story, and the debate here. a buddy of mine called said brees was just so predictable, blah, blah.

so i'm wondering: just because brees was the predictable pick, does that make it wrong? it feels like absolutely the right pick to me. everyone seems disturbed by the fact that they saw it coming. so what? no one saw wade coming and everyone hated the pick.

why, in the end, does sportsman have to EXCITE us? shouldn't it be about the essential rightness of the pick? not whether it creates buzz?

 

AD, that's a very valid point, and as I said before, Brees is entitled to whatever honors people see fit to bestow upon him. But Sportsman of the Year often used to be an award used to make us think about sports in a slightly different way, and this didn't do that.
I'll say this, however. By the original standards of the award set back in the '50s, Brees was a much more fitting choice than were Brady and Favre, great athletes though both are or were.

 

agreed: i'd like to see more about "athletes giving back", etc. but, i mean, he won the saints first super bowl in a town killed by the most destructive big-city hurricane, maybe ever -- and all there testify (and have for a while now) that he's been a vital presence in the rebuilding. seems like one of the few times it's a layup -- and supremely defensible.

they could've given it to nadal, shocked all of us, but three grand slams and all, it wouldn't be as "right" a pick as this one. and looking around, i can't really see too many other candidates. anyway, i thought layden did a great job.

 

One thing about Nadal. SI has in the past held off on candidates for this award waiting to see if they accomplished truly historic feat in their sport. Nicklaus didn't get it until 1978 because the mag wanted to see if he could win a Slam. I bet there's some of that same thinking with Nadal.
On the other hand, if Federer wins one of the majors next year, he could get it in 2011 on lifetime achievement grounds.