Should the Heisman award come after the bowl games?

[El Supremo]

[hijinx87]

1. no.

that would tend to give players on bowl eligible teams an unfair advantage
over players from non-bowl eligible teams, wouldn't it?

[Hokie]

2. With all the bowls that is not really an issue

Now that there 27 bowl games I think any credible Heisman candidate will be playing in a bowl game. Besides it is a double edge sword since a poor performnace could hurt a candidate's prospects (e.g., Reggie Bush).

[hijinx87]

3. and that is just the problem.

"I think any credible Heisman candidate will be playing in a bowl game."

regardless of whether or not this is likely to be true, it is not
required to play for in a bowl before you can be considered for the
Heisman.

not to mention the extra game would skew that stats. the Heisman should
be awarded after the regular season and before the post season for all the
same reasons the NFL MVP is, and it's really simple. it's an award for
performance during the regular season. post season performance is
specifically and intentionally excluded from consideration.

we're suggesting a cure (that kills) for a disease that doesn't exist.
this "controversy" simply doesn't crop up most of the time. people are getting
worked up because they think the HT would have gone to a different player
on the basis of one bowl game. even if the HT had been awarded after the bowl
season this year, I'm not sure it would have made a difference. but I am sure that
most other football program's season ended over a month ago. and I am sure
that's why awarding the HT after the bowls is unfair to most of the other
NCAA I-A programs.

[Hokie]

4. When is the last time a Heisman candidate wasn't in a bowl?

I cannot remember.

..."controversy" simply doesn't crop up most of the time." Well, it is certainly there this time. The fact is that Vince Young completely outplayed Reggie Bush in the most important game that either team played all year. I think the value of the Heisman is reduced when this happens.

I can think of no better way to showcase true talent than in a bowl game against a worthy opponent. The truth is that that the really good teams are only challenged once or twice per year during the regular season. That means most of games used to determine the Heisman winner are against patsies. I really could care less about the Heisman trophy. It is even dumber than the MVP awards in baseball that often get awarded to players who are less deserving than others because they play or winning teams or major market teams. The success (lack of, rather) of most Heisman winners in the NFL is evidence of what a poor judge of talent the Heisman voters have been in the past.

[hijinx87]

5. the HT is given for the best performance over the course . . .

of an entire season.

not one game. even if it was one of the best performances in
one of the best college football games I have ever seen. one
for the ages, certainly. but that's just not what the HT was
intended to recognize.

[northzax]

6. it's worth noting, I think

that Reggie Bush won the Heisman with the single largest margian ever. He routed the field, and his performance in the Rose Bowl wasn't actually BAD, (well, except for that lateral) so one game shouldn't have made a difference. I'd feel more for Vince Young if it had been a close contest, but this one really wasn't.

[erpowers]

10. Totally Wrong

Having a great game as a quarterback is a lot easier than having a great game as a running back. The quarterback touches the ball on every play so it is likely that he will have a better game than a running back. However, one game should not determine who is the winner of the Heisman Trophay. Overall Reggie Bush had a better year. People are really making too much of a big deal about this issue. I think Matt Leinhart had more passing yards than Young even though Leinhart had a slow start. Should we throw Leinhart into the mix of this issue? No. This is a non issue. Reggie Bush had a better season and the award is based on who had the better season.

[fishwax]

13. I don't think NFL success matters a whit in assessing the Heisman

The Heisman is for the most outstanding player in COLLEGE football.

The #1 pick in the draft and untold millions of dollars are for the college player with the most NFL potential.

The Heisman isn't and never has been meant to measure NFL "talent," but rather "performance" in a game that is quite different from the pro game.

[bigwillq]

7. No

While I agree with some of the above posters who say the Heisman winner usually is in a bowl game, there is a chance a player is just so good but his team is not. He should be rewarded for his individual performance rather then just his team's effort.
This is why the award should be given before the bowls.

[Hokie]

8. So what does the Heisman represent?

It certainly doesn't represent the best college player this year. I saw Vince Young and Reggie Bush together on the same field and it was clear that Vince Young in every way was the best player and had the most to do with his team winning. I know you can argue that this is just one game but this was THE game for both teams. I am not a fan of either USC or Texas so I think I am speaking objectively.

I think by awarding the Heisman based on a regular season performances only against a majority of inferior teams that the value of the award is way over hyped.

[erpowers]

11. Bad Calls and Mistakes

USC did not lose this game because Reggie Bush did not have a good game. The outcome came about because of bad calls and mistakes that were made by USC. There were three bad calls that went Texas' way. If those calls had been properly called USC could have won the game by double digits. Even if one of the calls had been called properly USC could have won the game by double digits. Also, even though I do not think Pete Carrol should have punted on the last 4 and 2 play I think he should have called a pass play. So you want to punish Reggie Bush for bad calls and mistakes.

[fishwax]

14. Oh, I think Vince Young had a LITTLE something to do with it

The TD where Young's knee was down on the pitch was a horrible call, and definitely changed the game and hurt USC. But just as their is no guarantee that Texas would have scored anyway had he been ruled down, there is certainly no guarantee (or even any real resason to argue, imo) that USC would have won the game if it had been called. Who knows how the game would have turned out.

I think Bush deserved the Heisman by far. But Vince Young was outstanding in the 2nd half of that game.

[erpowers]

9. No

I really think Reggie Bush had a better season this year. I do not think the Heisman should go to just the guy from the team that won the championship. The award should go to the guy who had the better season.

[fishwax]

12. NO

I've never understood this suggestion. Should the NFL MVP consider performance in the Super Bowl?

This year the suggestion is made b/c of Vince Young's outstanding performance in the Rose Bowl, but he got exactly what he deserved for that performance: the Rose Bowl MVP and the Sears Trophy.

I don't get how that one game is supposed to prove he should have won the Heisman. It's an award for the season, and too many of the TV analysts get way too hung up on single game performances.