When John W. Heisman first created the award he intended it to go to the most outstanding college football player. So should we compare players on the first twelve games of the season, or should we include conference championship games?
This idea becomes problematic. Many people argue that you should include conference games because the player and his team earned that extra game. Also, the NCAA includes the extra game in their season's statistics, so why shouldn't the voters consider that final game as well.
Here's the reason why they shouldn't: Not every team plays the same number of games if you include the conference championship game.
I think Heisman voters should've had to turn in their votes before the conference championship games began. I also think that all teams should've played all of their regular season games before any championship games can be played.
I know that teams used to play a varying number of games each season. Sometimes 11 sometimes 13. But now everyone plays the same number (12).
And not all of the conferences have championship games.
What do you guys think?
Should Heisman voters include conference championship games as a factor when voting?
Or how about:
Should the Heisman just be considered a regular season award, or should we wait until after all of the bowls are played to decide?
6 comments:
That's a great question. It's very relevant to this season as the Heisman may come down to the fact that players like Tebow and Bradford played in their conf chamionships and someone like McCoy didn't. It's probably not a fair way of deciding but in a season like this where it's not clear cut, it's difficult to think of how else it can be decided. But it's not really fair to certain players, like McCoy.
Interesting question you brought up. I definitely think it hurts McCoy and Harrell because they didn't have that extra game.
However playing in a championship game could hurt someone's cause if they play poorly.
So I would have to say that Heisman voters should submit their vote before conference championship games are played. This would even out the playing field and make it more fair for all the contenders.
I think voters should have to vote before the conf. championship games. I think too much emphasis is put on the team sucess of the candidate when it really shouldn't factor into it. It should come down to stats and that's it. Shonne Greene is getting black balled out of real Heisman consideration because the Hawkeyes aren't title contenders. How are his stats as a running back less worthy than McCoy's as a qb? I'd say they are more impressive because Greene is surrounded by lower level talent than McCoy is.
I say decide before the championship games or wait until the bowl games are over. It is completely unfair that Bradford had that one game where McCoy didn't even get a chance to match him with the Big XII Championship Game. That one extra game is in the spotlight and can change everything. The Heisman should be decided based on a season. But the sad thing is that last impression will mean a lot more when it is this close.
I think that Heisman voters should wait until after the championship games to vote. It may leave some players out, but just because you're in a championship game doesn't mean it's a good thing. If you preform badly it will be a strike against you.
I'd say votes should be in before conference championship games. Like you said, it's not fair for players who don't have as many games --it's an unfair advantage. When the players have an outstanding final game, it's fresh in people's minds when the person who wins the Heisman should be based on stats throughout the entire season.
Post a Comment