Think about it, co-mvp's. They are both having super fantastic years and it's obvious that their teams are the two best in the league. Best friends sharing a moment of glory now that's something
2007-01-27 16:42:11 · 8 answers · asked by #15mwu 5 in Sports ➔ Basketball
Why, there have been co-rookie of the year's before, why not mvp
2007-01-27 16:55:13 · update #1
the only reason I think Nash deserves it more is becuase of the depth on Dallas. You could see that they have a better chance of winning a game without Dirk than Phoenix does of winning without Steve.
2007-01-28 00:55:21 · answer #1 · answered by Jeremy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, i dislike the idea of having co mvps or co champs or anything like that. its most valuable player not players. so just have 1 winner.
2007-01-28 01:30:53 · answer #2 · answered by what? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no Steve Nash deserves more and it called the MVP awards not the MVP'S award
2007-01-28 00:52:47 · answer #3 · answered by RJW 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think Nash is the best player in basketball. The Mavericks go in the tank without Nowitzki...but the Suns would still be good without Nash.
For more on the Mavericks, Suns, and the NBA check this site out. http://factipedia.com/sportsblogs/nba.html
2007-01-28 00:51:52 · answer #4 · answered by Melinda M 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they can still win without dirk and phoenix cant without nash so people think nash is better when hes not just mavs r better and deeper it would be cool.
2007-01-28 02:06:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO because Gilbert Arenas deserves it more
2007-01-29 16:41:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN CO-MVP'S IN THE NBA.
2007-01-29 21:52:41 · answer #7 · answered by smitty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no they both suck kobe will win mvp okay
2007-01-28 02:31:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
no, there will always be one loser and one winner.
2007-01-28 01:19:48 · answer #9 · answered by johnnobody 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋