A Sea Of Red

Question: Since when has wins and losses been the determining factor in the Heisman Trophy?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has this not been the award given to the best player in the country? It seems like recent years, if a "candidate's" team loses, their candidacy is in jeopardy (at least by the media). This pretty much makes it impossible for anyone other than a player on a championship contendor to even be considered. Today players like Andre Ware and Marshal Faulk wouldn't have a chance. It's sad what this has become, and is starting to be a joke in my mind. They, (insert whatever "they" is here), pick who they want to win before the season starts. These chosen ones jostle for position throughout the year based on how well their team does. At the end of the year, if their team is in the championship game, they're basically a shoe-in. How is this in any way picking the best player? College football is a team sport, but this is an individual award. Give it to the best player in the country, regardless of what team he plays for, not the best player on the best team (which to me is incredibly flawed logic). Anyone else fed up with this?

I dont follow this stuff all that closely but I equate it to the MLB MVP....remember back when A-Rod could have gotten the MVP award but he played for the Rangers so that automatically counted him out

I wonder if anyone has a list of the last person to win it that WASNT on a top 5 or 10 team...I'm thinking it will be one or two...if at all

The difference being that the MVP award by definition refers to value and not talent. The Heisman allegedly goes to the nation's best college football player. But its been nothing more than a beauty contest since its inception. You think the best player in the nation every year is always a QB or RB. Looking at the results you'd think so.

As for Andre, his team was actually outstanding (albeit on probation) that played in the formidable Southwest Conference. Even so, I don't think he deserved that Heisman. He was just a system quarterback whose inflated numbers don't even look great by today's standards. He's yesterday's version of today's Texas Tech QBs.

dorsey deserves it this year.....i told a guy at work that and he told me it was because i read it in ESPN the magazine....i dont' read that turd of a mag but i looked at it after he mentioned it and it felt the same way i did...

RubberMallet wrote:dorsey deserves it this year.....i told a guy at work that and he told me it was because i read it in ESPN the magazine....i dont' read that turd of a mag but i looked at it after he mentioned it and it felt the same way i did...

When a single defensive player alters every facet of a team's offensive attack, much like a certain Michigan CB from a few years back, I think he more than deserves it. So, I agree with you on Dorsey, but I also understand the sports society we live in, so he won't win it.

In my opinion, the only other comparable player, based on pure talent and production, is McFadden. That guy, as much as I hate to admit it, is unbelievable!

RubberMallet wrote:dorsey deserves it this year.....i told a guy at work that and he told me it was because i read it in ESPN the magazine....i dont' read that turd of a mag but i looked at it after he mentioned it and it felt the same way i did...

Haha, ishbox agrees with jason whitlock, who he despises.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/7449908

ALUmnus wrote:

RubberMallet wrote:dorsey deserves it this year.....i told a guy at work that and he told me it was because i read it in ESPN the magazine....i dont' read that turd of a mag but i looked at it after he mentioned it and it felt the same way i did...

Haha, ishbox agrees with jason whitlock, who he despises.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/7449908

AAAAHAHHHHHHHHHHH

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO