Originally Posted by keg in kc
The award is too much a popularity contest and too much about wins and losses. You see it in this thread, where people are complaining about a quarterback winning because his team lost TWO games. Geno Smith isn't even on the ballot with a 4000-yard, 40 TD, 6 INT season, but his teammate Tavon Austin is? Because Smith's the face of a team that lost five times? (I'm not saying he should have won, just making the point...) Isn't the award supposed to be for the most outstanding player in college football? Or is it the most outstanding player on an team that goes undefeated or loses once in college football? It's like you can't be outstanding if your team loses. There were people a year ago complaining about a 3-loss Baylor QB winning it. I guess it's not about being the best. It's about being on the best team. That's why Smith lost the award (and wasn't even in NYC) once WVU lost. That's why Collin Klein went from front-runner to also ran...with one loss.
This. And even more to the point, it changes from year to year, and some times even changes during the season. We always hear about how a certain player needs their team to go undefeated and once they lose they are more or less out of it. Then last year we have, as you pointed out, a winner from a three loss team. This year we hear that Klein has to go undefeated to be able to win. He loses one game (and still finishes the regular season with a conference title, a top 5 team and playing in a BCS bowl). So then a two game loser wins the trophy?
There is no consistency in the requirements. It is all about who the media decides they want to win.
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."
-- George Orwell, Shooting an Elephant