Wednesday, August 6, 2008

SI Could Use a Few Mulligans







I really do not care about the Brett Favre storyline. At. All. The only reason it is remotely interesting to me is because of how it is comical to see yet again how Sports Illustrated made an incredibly awful pick for their SI Sportsman of the Year. Just think about it: Brett Favre...as Sportsman of the Year. Huh?! If anything, he is currently exhibiting everything that is wrong about the attitude of entitlement that plagues the modern athlete. Can't remember where I read it yesterday, but a post somewhere called Brett Favre "Everything That is Wrong With America". Sarcastic, yes. But it actually makes sense if you think about it long enough.

It's hard to tell which pick looked dumber the following year: the Favre pick or the Wade pick. Wade's team finished DFL (Dead F'in Last) and he ended up "getting hurt" and sitting out the season. Probably not more embarassing that this whole Favre business, but still not a ringing endorsement for the "award".
2005 was the year Tom Brady won, which, ok, whatever, he probably deserved it. The Red Sox won as a team in 2004 for breaking the curse, and again, sure, fine. They broke the curse. Yippee. Coincidence that Brady, Favre, and the Red Sox have become three of the most hated entities in all of sports? Perhaps a new Sports Illustrated curse? Maybe.
What is MOST disappointing about all of this is that Sports Illustrated wasted an oppurtunity to give the award to the man who probably deserved it each year: Roger Federer. If you have paid any attention to tennis this year, then you know that it is highly possible that Federer will never again reach that sustained level of greateness. Consider...
2004: 74-6 record, 11 titles
2005: 81-4 record, 11 titles
2006: 92-5 record, 12 titles (Wade? Really? Over 92 wins?)
2007: 68-9 record, 8 titles
Numbers like those will not be put up in tennis for a long time. It was as if SI kept waiting for Federer to win the Grand Slam to anoint him, instead of recognizing the remarkable level he was already playing at. A shame, but who knows: if he had won, maybe he would be as hated as some of the magazine's most recent winners.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Favre is much worse than Wade. Wade's team was old, he got hurt...he has excuses for a shitty season. The Favre thing is just embarassing for everyone involved.

Anonymous said...

Federer is awesome, but tennis is obviously low on the radar of the American media.

Sam said...

I think even more pathetic, and even more contrived, is the ESPY male athlete of the year.

Tiger and Lance Armstrong have won it 8 out of the past 9 years, which shows you they pay attention to more "worldly" sports and place emphasis on individual performers. Why Roger didn't win in one of those years is beyond me.