Wow..you have done your homework and I wholeheartedly agree with your point about coming thru in the big games when your team needs you most. Most MVP awards in any sport are for just that...the players that stepped up in the big games! SO THE BIG QUESTION IS....why does the NSCAA vote on this award at the end of the season before playoffs...that is what has caused the problems...it needs to be changed to be fair to everyone!!!
I dont want to start a flame war here but, the All-American teams and MAC-Hermann award are predominately american awards. Having 2/3 of the finalists for the Hermann being Canadian may have… looked bad for US womans soccer? As posted earlier, it is possible that they are making up for 2002 by adding Sinclar and not Thorlakson although Thorlakson had the better season. again, pure speculation.
I am new to this site but have been a reader for some time I went to the Missouri Athletic Club site and the Hermann Award www.mac-hermann-trophy.org/ Acccording to the the Club- “The Missouri Athletic Club’s Hermann Trophy honors the top male and female Division I college soccer players in the United States. The award is college soccer’s version of the Heisman Trophy and represents the highest level of individual achievement in the sport. "The winners of the M.A.C.'s Hermann Trophy will be decided by a vote of current NSCAA members at the NCAA Division I level. A nominating committee, consisting of conference representatives from each Division I conference for men and women, select 15 candidates to appear on the ballot. Ballots with the names of the top 15 men are sent to the men’s head coaches and ballots with the names of the top 15 women are sent to the women’s head coaches." Voter Instructions: 1. Ballots must contain the names of three players. The names will be assigned a point value in descending order. The player receiving the highest point total wins the award. 3. Ballots must be postmarked no later than Saturday, Nov. 30. I note two things- voting was before the Women’s final four and voting is for the “top” player. What a player did in the final four does not matter since it was after voting was completed and what is important is a voter’s interpretation of “top”. Being one of only two college players on the Olympic team may make a "top" player vs. the performance of a possible MVP on a possible nat'l champ team. Being a consistant top player (Sinclair) may get votes. The past three winners (Welsh, Wagner, Reddick) either did not win the nat'l championship or were not the MVPs (one could argue) of the the winning team the years that they won the Hermann. This may boil down to an "outstanding player vs. a most valuable player" argument.
Good work CAFAN Yes, in 1998, Fotopolous led the country in goals(32) and points(75). She also didn't win the Hermann that year. 2001, either Wagner or Wambach, who met in the College Cup semis, should've won the award. Wambach led the nation in goals and scoring and Wagner was probably the best overall player that year. Welsh was good, but not better than those 2.
Good points RUfan. The MAC Hermann rules need adjusting. The problem is that the NCAA MAC Hermann award is seen as the most important individual award in the league (i.e. MVP). People expect it to be open to all nationalities, based on the current, entire NCAA season and restricted to actual NCAA performance - otherwise what is it? If the rules aren't restricted to NCAA performance, maybe Brittany Timko should be among the 3 finalists. She finished her NCAA season a month early and still managed to score 6 more points than O'Reilly and 31% of Nebraska's total points for the year. On top of that, she won the Golden Shoe Award (top scorer) at the 2004 U19 World Championships in Thailand. All the more remarkable because Canada played 2 fewer games than Germany, China, USA and Brazil - and Timko outscored Marta (one of 3 finalists for FIFA's 2004 POY). In 2003 Timko was a starter on Canada's 4'th place World Cup team. No, as much as Timko was a 'top player' in 2004 (and has been for some time), she does not belong in the final 3 for the 2004 NCAA MAC Hermann Award. Katie does - and then some.
At Collegesports.com it states "O'Reilly headlines Hermann finalists". As I've stated before, the one candidate with the least impressive stats "headlines" the other finalists. It's that type of hyperbole that makes me less impressed with pre and post season accolades and primarily concentrate on what's really important... wins and losses. I know that we're looking for the next generation of players to carry the women's soccer banner on a national and international scale, but what's wrong with letting the players truly earn the praise that's heaped upon them first. O'Reilly didn't lead the US to Olympic gold, just as Lebron James didn't lead the US to ANY medal at all. At some point barring something unforseen, they will each represent the pinnacle of their respective sport. I guess, at the point of sounding redundant, is I wish that the powers that be would take a more objective approach to awarding these very prestigious awards and not be so swayed by the hype.
i was wondering if y'all could clear some things up for me real quick. i watched most of the olympic women's soccer, but i missed the us's semifinal game. who was it that scored the game winning goal? also, i heard a rumor that there were only two players on the women's national team. can anyone remind me who they were? thanks, i appreciate it
It is unbelievable that the Champions do not have one single player in the first team. Maybe it's a testament of Notre Dames TEAM play. Still it's a shame!
Tarheelfan490: Only two college players on the US National Team? I heard that rumor too: Heather O'Reilly and Lindsay Tarpley. Winning goal in the semis? I believe that was Heather O'Reilly. Too bad you missed that. Nice goal. Nice little player.
Regardless of what the official wording is, this has become a "career" award. Often a player that has an outstanding year wins a year or so later. This year it's wired for Sinclair. She deserved it two years ago, but she's going to get it this year. Last year, it should have been Tarpley, but Redick got it for career plus Olympics. If Tarpley had been healthy this year and she had had a good year, she'd have gotten it this year. So, if she's healthy next year and has a good year, she'll get it then, just like Sinclair this year. Putting Heather in the run this year is acknowledgement of her Olympics contribution, including winning goal in championship game, and setting the stage for her to get it two years from now. But for this scenario to pan out, she will have to have a very good year the next two.
You have to wonder if the Hermann has EVER been awarded to the right player. 2004 Shouldabeen Thorlakson, awarded to (probably Sinclair) 2003 Shouldabeen Tarpley, awarded to Reddick 2002 Shouldabeen Sinclair, awarded to Wagner 2001 Shouldabeen Wagner, awarded to Weiss These were all obvious mistakes, not close judgement calls. Not sure about 2000 and 1999, but 1998 was another obvious mistake as mentioned on previous post. The votes are collected at the end of the regular season around Nov 1 and the award is not made until January. Does it take that long to count the votes? Have these guys heard of adding machines to tab the votes? or calculators? or....computers? Why not simply postpone the vote deadline until Dec 10 or 15, after the postseason play? Award could still be made on time. I know I'm missing something here. The solution can't be that simple. There are 2 Huge IOUs that factor into next year's vote. Tarpley for 2003, and Thorlakson for 2004. Both are seniors next year. What's the solution to that?
My belief is that the coaches who vote on this rarely if ever watch games outside of their own and their opponents. There are over 300 D1 women's programs. Do you really think most of them have a clue what the difference is between the top 5 candidates? I think the results give the answer. Thorlakson not in top 3? An embarassing farce.
And this has exactly what to do with the college season? Those of us who are US women's soccer fans were very happy with the contributions and goals that Tarpley and O'Reilly scored to help the US advance and win the Olympics. However, those goals and performances had nothing to do with the college season and should not be taken into account when determining the best college player. As for this award, it seems that they get it wrong a lot. Then, if the player they screwed is still around the next year, they give it to them, whether they deserve it for that year or not. It's a vicious cycle that continues and doesn't appear it will end anytime soon.
i was just commenting on kejj suggesting players earn the praise that was heaped upon them. also, everyone seems to think that the voters are wrong.....maybe y'all are wrong in what you think the hermann really means? nowhere does it say MVP, at least not to my knowledge, and "top" does not necessarily mean MVP. maybe you should start a new award that goes to the MVP, and then we could stop having this conversation
I've read some very powerful arguments as to why so and so should be in the first team, who should be in the second team, who should win, etc. All of this supported by irrefutable statistics. Obviously some do not agree with the final picking order. Well, life is not fair at times. But to say that the rules of the Mac-Hermann Award should be changed just because our dearest didn't win, it is unfair. You make the players fit the rules, not make the rules fit the players.
No, you come up with criteria that make sense and then do your homework so the award isn't viewed as a farce - which it currently is. Failing that, you step aside and let someone else do it right. Ok, I'll bite. What do y'all think the MAC Hermann award really means? What does 'top' mean? And if there was a separate MVP award, what do y'all think would be the point of the MAC Hermann Award?
Imagine if the recipients of the Award are told at the time they are presented with it, congratulations on receiving this award, but it is really a farce. Sorry.
I agree with Gator on this one. The MAC Hermann is supposed to be for accomplishments in NCAA play. US Soccer has its own set of end of the year awards, and that's were the Olympic accomplishments should be recognized, not with the MAC Hermann.
Count me in too...I think this award should be all and only about the NCAA Season..like the Heisman that is how it is viewed by all the college players...as the MVP and their is no doubt Katie deserved it! Rewarding people a year later makes no sense to me..if it is because the voting takes place too early (Nov 30- before the playoffs ) then change the rules!!!! Toepunt I disagree with your statement about it being unfair to change the rules...not if the rules have demonstrated they need changed over the past several years...rewarding players for years they should of gotten it but didn't makes NO SENSE at all..
No problem, it is ok to disagree. Late recognition is better than no recognition at all. People that get inducted in Halls of Fame are receiving recognition years after. That is sensible no?. In this case of the Mac-Hermann award to diminish its value for this year and call it a farce is a disservice to the person who receive it on January 7. It is not her fault. If rules or voting structure is to be reviewed and altered, it needs to be announced first with at least two years of notice, so players like Thorlakson that perhaps in the minds of the present deciders would be seriously consider for next year, will still have a change of being nominated before any change is implemented.
Even under the current rules, Thorlakson should have been the winner. Having her left out of the top 3 is INSANE. (This coming from a Santa Clara fan who hates losing to Notre Dame!) I would bet that if you asked any of the top 3 about the omission of Thorlakson, they would tell you they were surprised, and not because it is politically correct to say so. If change were to occur, why would you need two years notice??? Also remember that this award used to be two separate awards. I am not sure why it was unified, but it clearly is supposed to be the best collegiate player for the season in which it was given. If NSCAA wants a career achievement award, they should create one.
If I receive an award which is supposed to honor the best player of the year and a player like Thorlakson is not even nominated then the award takes on less meaning. This is akin to not inviting UNC to the NCAA playoffs because they didn't win the ACC automatic berth and then saying the Championship isn't diminished by UNC's lack of a presence.
This is interesting and thank you for clarifying a few things. If current rules point to Thorlakson as a nominee and she wasn't nominated, then perhaps the coaches that voted need some talking to. Clearly she deserved better than what she got. The people voting seem to have some ulterior motives or some political agenda. Does Thorlakson or anybody else have any recourse? I agree with you that the NSCAA should have a separate Career Achievement Award if that is what they are trying to recognize.
haha, or maybe y'all are wrong and the professional division I soccer coaches are right. i mean, it's not they are paid to evaluate talent on the highest level or anything. could it be that they know something y'all don't? i dunno, just a thought to piss some people off