Dan Le Batard

[Illmatic]

I don't know how many of you know this, but the Miami Herald's Dan Le Batard wrote a column saying that race is what contributed to Steve Nash winning the MVP over Shaq. This has produced a giant uproar--Charles Barkley, for one, ripped the column as "asinine".

Now, I think Le Batard has a point here. I think the fact that Nash is a little white guy tearing it up in a league full of big black guys certainly did have an effect on him winning it over Shaq. But he could have picked a much better example.

FOr instance, the Heisman. Do you really think guys like Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, and Jason White were the best players in college football the year they won it? Hell no.

[humbucking fool]

Don't really remember Weinke's run at the Heisman too much but Crouch carried a very overrated Nebraska team to a national championship game. That team was no where near as good if they didn't have him. Ditto with Jason White. Even with the team around him, his accuracy and leadership were keys to that team that was 12-0 at the time of voting, and a near unanimous #1 in the polls. In a year that no one stood out as a clear favorite (I beleive all the QB finalists had similar numbers), can't beat em.

As for the article...of course it had a factor. He didn't carry taht team at all. There are several capable point guards in the league, and there's only one freak like Amare Stoudamire. Who wouldn't wnat to leap on the bandwagon of the plucky little white boy with long hair?

[Illmatic]

No way in hell, however, was Crouch the best player in college football. That year, Rex Grossman was.

Are you kidding me?

"Accuracy"? "Leadership"?

Give me those recievers, that offensive line, and those running backs and I could do well. Seriously. White was a white-bread vanilla mediocre quarterback who was a product of the OU juggernaut. I think he pumped my gas this morning.

And again, he wasn't the best player in college football. ****, he wasn't the best quarterback in college football.

[NS_Joker]

i don't know about racism.. but people like the underdog. it's not every year that a point guard wins the MVP, white or black. people might be getting bored of shaq because he's put up so many MVP caliber seasons and wanted to vote for somebody else. Nash is the clear MVP, and in second place should be Wade, not O'Neal.

[robo2448]

I have always thought, and continue to think, that Dan LeBatard is a complete idiot.

[robo2448]

I also feel that Nash completely deserves it. He transformed the Suns from a last place team to a first place team, simply by emphasizing the fast break and ball movement. I also feel that DeAntoni should be coach of the year.

As much as Shaq has done, we all knew that the Heat would be dangerous this year, whether they had Shaq or not.

[humbucking fool]

No way in hell, however, was Crouch the best player in college football. That year, Rex Grossman was.

Are you kidding me?

"Accuracy"? "Leadership"?

Give me those recievers, that offensive line, and those running backs and I could do well. Seriously. White was a white-bread vanilla mediocre quarterback who was a product of the OU juggernaut. I think he pumped my gas this morning.

And again, he wasn't the best player in college football. ****, he wasn't the best quarterback in college football.


Not to hijack the thread but here's the DL on the 3 guys you mentioned --

In 2000 it came down to Chris Weinke and Josh Heupel, with Drew Brees and LaDainian Tomlinson being the longshots. Weinke won, after leading his team to a 23-1 two-year record (up to the time of voting) a national championship, and another appearance forthcoming against Heupel and Oklamhoma. Although we all know tomlinson became the best pro of the bunch, that season weinke threw for and NCAA leading 4176 yards with 33 TDs and only 11 interceptions. He had the feel-good story too, having done all that after playing 6 years of minor league baseball.

The next year, Grossman and Dorsey were both sophomores, I think. I know Grossman was and finished second. No sophomore has ever won the trophey, so there may have been some bias there. But Crouch's numbers were good, keeping in mind that he was an OPTION QB, not a straight gunning QB like Grossman, Dorsey, and Harrington, the first 2 of which had much better supporting casts. Everyone expected Dorsey to lead the Hurricanes to the national championship, and Grossman's Gators didn't even play for the SEC title, in a year they were considered loaded. The Huskers were 11-1 and heading for a shellacking from Miami, but Crouch ran for over 1100 yards and 15 scores, passed for 1500 and seven, and had 63 recieving yards and one TD. He was one of the most versitle players I've seen in the college game and certainly alot of fun to watch.

In 03, it was a certainly watered down pool. Larry Fitzgerald was only a sophomore coming off of a team with 4 losses. Chris Perry and Eli Manning had done nothing to distinguish themselves as clear front runners.

Even with his awesome supporting cast, White still had to deliver the ball. He threw for 40 touchdowns, over 3700 yards against only 8 interceptions, and lead the nation in efficiency by completing 64% of his passes. With his story with the knee injuries and all that, he was the clear favorite to win the trophy , Fitzgerald made it close but White winning was never a surprise.

Interesting to note that you mentioned 3 QBs who lost national championship games right after winning the Heisman.

[Illmatic]

Crouch completed 53.9% of his passes (okay) and had more interceptions than touchdowns (no). He wasn't much better than, say, Jammal Lord would be.

Also, you forget that it's easier to sweep the Big XII North than the SEC East.

You seem to forget that award should not just go to the Best Senior Quarterback on a Top 5 Ranked Team.

Your whole argument is about how the players' teams did, and not the players' actual ability.

[Simple Man]

You either have a hell of a memory or have good resources.

(off topic)

[lunch998]

So should Steve Nash not be MVP? I don't understand.

[3074326]

I don't think it was a question of race.

I know why he won the MVP. He helped the Suns a huge amount. I don't think he should've won, but I can't say that he won because of race. The voting wasn't a landslide or anything.

[humbucking fool]

Also, you forget that it's easier to sweep the Big XII North than the SEC East.

You seem to forget that award should not just go to the Best Senior Quarterback on a Top 5 Ranked Team.

Your whole argument is about how the players' teams did, and not the players' actual ability.

And how do Heisman voters vote? Many years -- the best top 5 quarterback when there isn't an exceptional standout player (for example Charles Woodson in '97) elsewhere in DI. THe winner is also almost always a Top 5 QB -- because they often have good numbers for very very good teams, and make those teams better. If a guy puts up gaudy numbers for a 6-5 team, or even a 7-4 team, why give him the Heisman? You seem high on Grossman but he, quite simply, was one of the top 3 passing QBs that he had to split votes with. His numbers weren't too much better than Dorsey's or Harrington's.

[Illmatic]

Just because the voters vote one way doesn't make them right. You don't seem to get this.

I don't care about how they vote. They're wrong.

[jungleman90]

Nebraska shouldnt even have been in the title game. Colorado or Oregon shoulda been.

[humbucking fool]

Just because the voters vote one way doesn't make them right. You don't seem to get this.

I don't care about how they vote. They're wrong.


Then tell me WHY the other players should have won the award.

And I totally agree on Nebraska not deserving to be in -- they were completely overmatched by Miami, but the fact that they got there may have swayed voters. As someone said earlier in the thread -- people love the underdog.

[jungleman90]

They were completely overmatched by Miami and plus the game before they just got blown out by Colorado, yet Nebraska still beat Colorado by like .07987 points in the BCS standings to get into the Rose Bowl. Miami would have whooped anyone though that year though.

[nitzguy]

nash helped like 30+ games. PHX wasn't a playoff team, MIA was barely. both are now top seeds in their respective conferences, with PHX being #1 overall, nash was more valuable than shaq. race had nothing to do with it... if you think that, you're a Miami heat fan.

[Steve DeBerg]

I have always thought, and continue to think, that Dan LeBatard is a complete idiot.

I agree competely. He gets paid to sound like an idiot and he does it well.

[Brewer14]

Nash definitly deserved it.

Its most valuable player, not best player. Yes, Shaq is the most dominant player in the league, but whos more valuable to their team, Nash to the Suns or Shaq to the Heat?

The Heat made it to the semifinals last year. Phoenix didnt even win 30 games. Nash is the MVP.

[guitarsuperstar]

LeBaRETARD has completely lost any credibility, with his stupid comments. It's one thing to be a homer (which he is) but throwing race into the arguement is digusting and are you telling me that somehow the voters are racist yet shaq has won the award before and before nash and after shaq the winners were Duncan (twice) and Garnett both of whom are african americans

[Hababi]

Suns record with Nash: 60-15
Suns record without Nash: 2-5

Point proven.

[MattSharpIsCool]

Thats a pretty neat join date....

I can see why someone might think race was a factor. Its been a long time since a white player won the MVP award, and it was definitly a close race between Nash and Shaq (and Iverson)....but I personally dont believe Nash won because he was white, I think he won because he was the most valuable player.

[Illmatic]

The Heat made it to the semifinals last year. Phoenix didnt even win 30 games. Nash is the MVP.

.................

Do you pay attention to basketball at all?

Retard.

Of course, we now know that Shaq didn't win it because Wade probably deserved it more than he did.

AI should have won it, though.