For all of the Heisman talk about Charles Scott

quote:

---

Chase Daniel or Tebow

---

um, neither of these play in a bad conference

quote:

---

"Where are they?"... Troy Smith, Reggie Bush (underproducing no matter how talented he is), Matt Leinart, Jason White, Carson Palmer, Eric Crouch, Chris Weinke?

---

What does that have to do with anything?

quote:

---

I don't think so. Now-a-days, the trophy goes to the "cutest" player, the guy who plays well in bad conference for an overrated team (USC, Wack-10).

---

Tim Tebow?

quote:

---

Chase Daniel or Tebow (guys who will not be quality NFLers).

---

1) Neither plays in a bad conference

2) What does the NFL have to do with anything?

It's not even the best player in college that year. It's a standout on a winning team.

man....you spent a lot of time typing just to be completely wrong

quote:

---

Heisman Trophy is a complete joke now

---

You may have a point... Reggie clearly had the best numbers in college football; whereas, someone like Joe Addai was awesome, but didn't have Reggie's numbers. Addai, unlike Reggie, is AWESOME in the NFL and clearly on his way to the hall of fame. I would say that if Addai would have been on USCs team with Reggie, playing their cupcake schedule, he would have been right up there in the race. So, point being, Addai is better, but the numbers won't point to it in college because of the schedule differences between the conferences.

I think this is a good argument. Well put.

Ok I'll agree with that. I just wanted to make it clear that

media=USC=Bush=Heisman isn't true.

Reggie Bush was absolutely raping shite that year and Addai was for the most part a "potential" guy until the last third of his final season here.

quote:

---

Reggie Bush (underproducing no matter how talented he is)

---

while you fricked up so many parts of your post, i chose to highlight this one, i could definitely argue this point with you, but i guess that's a whole other discussion.

I'm guessing that alot of people are missing my point. I wrote it pretty early this morning, and it must have not read as clear to others as it did to myself.
My point is that, years ago, the trophy was given out to an "elite" level of player. The men who received this trophy went on to be stars in the NFL and many will be Hall of Famers. Over the past couple of years, this has not been the case.

Why is this happening? I'm willing to bet that the level of ability in the NCAA is not declining; therefore, the nature of the award must be changing. With all of the ridiculous media coverage, they alone can "show" you who they believe that the winner "should be." As others have agreed, it becomes a sort of popularity contest.

For those who were angered by my Reggie Bush example. For the record, I think he can be a huge threat in the NFL... but it isn't as a running back. It will be in the slot matched up on linebackers and safeties, and it won't be running between the tackles.

For those angered by the Tebow example. I think Tebow is a heck of a college football player. Do I like him? No. Will he be any good in the NFL? That's yet to be seen, but I would be willing to bet not. However, he did have a great year last year statistically, but was he the best player in college football? I'm not so sure.

Back to the original point of the thread. Does Charles Scott deserve the Heisman Trophy? Up to this point, absolutely. Is he the best player in college football? I don't know, but he's pretty damn close. Will he win the trophy? If this was 1985, I would put my money on it. But the reality is that the media does not give the award to the best player in college football.