It's that time of year where everyone goes a little loopy, where individuals and groups try for the elusive prizes very few win and where decisions are made about who has or hasn't been good.
Of course I'm talking about the madness associated with the Halberg Awards, not Christmas.
The initial list of nominees for the often controversial awards was released yesterday.
As a member of the 28-strong Voting Academy, it is always an anxious but exciting time. It's like cutting people from the "Christmas gifts" list and deciding who deserves a bigger chunk of Christmas pudding and who doesn't - a task not for the faint-hearted.
The academy has been strengthened by the inclusion of cyclist and Olympic medallist Sarah Ulmer, netballer Adine Wilson and rugby legend Michael Jones. In addition, providing some much needed gender diversity among the media representatives are Michelle Pickles (TV3 sports reporter, presenter, producer) and Rikki Swannell (sports editor, Radio Network).
With a more diverse academy, it has been interesting to see which athletes, teams, and coaches made the first cut. For the uninitiated, the supreme Halberg Award (which is applied to all categories) is to be awarded to the individual athlete, athlete in a team, or team whose achievement represented excellence in sport at the highest level.
Regarding this achievement, we must consider whether it occurred in that sport's "pinnacle event" (or major or milestone event), whether a world record, world ranking, or world recognition was achieved, and what the quality of the field/competition was. In addition, we must consider the global nature of the sport.
Awards are always subjective because it is difficult to compare apples and oranges, especially when some get more time in the sun than others.
One of the things we must put to one side is the amount of media attention some sports get over others, so it helps to continually refer back to the criteria. By including individuals on the Voting Academy who offer diversity with regards to perspective, sporting experience, sporting knowledge and the ability to see the broader picture, the decision-making process is fairer (if not transparent).
The Halberg Trust is protective of the quality of the awards, and keeping the categories to a minimum is one way of protecting the brand.
This is a good thing, because there is nothing worse than ceremonies where everyone gets recognized.
It diminishes the mana associated with such events, and from a pragmatic point of view it tends to make the evening drag out! A new award for Disabled Sportsperson of the Year, however, is a much needed addition.
The Halberg Trust did its homework when considering adding to the categories, and the addition was strongly supported by a range of key stakeholders, including disabled athletes themselves.
Being a team player myself, I'm super keen to contemplate the recipient of Team of the Year.
Of course, much of New Zealand and the media were consumed by the RWC 2011 tournament, where the All Blacks finally managed to win the pinnacle event for rugby after a 24 year hiatus. Surely, Graham Henry and Richie McCaw will be strong contenders in their respective categories?
A team to make a late surge for consideration, however, could be the Black Caps, who also managed to break a 26-year drought in winning a test match against Australia on their soil. Was it a "fluke" or an achievement worthy of national recognition?
There was so much controversy regarding last year's Supreme Winners - the All Whites - so I'm looking forward to more healthy debate leading up to the February announcements.
Anyone out there think the Black Caps should be contenders for the main prize? Let the arguments around the kitchen table begin!
