Last night I was watching the Iowa Indiana game. Usually, when Dan Dakich is calling a game, I mute the TV. But, for some reason, I had the volume on last night. During the game, Dakich commented that while Denzel Valentine is the best player in the Big Ten, Yogi Ferrell is the most valuable player. I have heard others draw this distinction and, quite frankly, have never understood it.

Most. Valuable. Player. 

Most: greatest in amount or degree.

Valuable: having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities.

Player: a person taking part in a sport or game.

So the Most Valuable Player is the "person taking part in a sport or game" who has the "greatest amount" of "desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities." To me, that sounds an awful lot like the "best" player. It certainly does not support the distinction drawn by Dakich and others. For their distinction to make sense, the award would need to be called the Most Valuable (to his team) Player Award.

Consider the following analogy:

A family has one car and it's a 2000 Ford Focus. The family depends on this car to get to work, school and shopping. Without this car, the family would have to walk or take public transportation. To this family, the Focus is certainly important. Now imagine a very rich guy who has dozens of cars. He collects them. One car in particular, a brand new Bentley, he rarely drives. It is mostly for show. He could certainly do without it and be just fine. To him, the Bentley is not very important. But nobody in their right mind would say that the 2000 Ford Focus is more valuable than the brand new Bentley. 

I understand that people will disagree about which "characteristics or qualities" are most "desirable or esteemed." When it comes to sports, these are inherently subjective concepts. But in my opinion, the idea of relative importance does not belong in the equation.

TL;DR. MVP = Best Player.