[metsjetsfan]

Completely agree, but not sure what your point is. They haven't had as good a season as RG3 and Luck, so they shouldn't be in the Voldemort discussion. Right?

...Moore and Keenum both have more passing yds and TDs, a higher completion %, fewer INTs, and higher QB ratings than Luck.  Keenum had the best statistical season for a QB in history.  So they have had "as good a season as RG3 and Luck" if not better.  Let's also keep in mind that if Andrew were not playing in a power-running offense, everyone agrees that his stats would easily be just as gaudy as other QBs.

Why is neither Keenum nor Moore in the Voldemort discussion now?  Boise State and Houston each have 1 loss, and each QB was unfortunate that the 1 loss came in their most important games.

RG3 has 3 losses, but none of them were in essential games that influenced their ranking or BCS chances.  His most high-profile performances were against 2-loss TCU and 3-loss Oklahoma (which clearly has not matched preseason hype).  He also got very lucky in the TCU game.  It was not a highly-anticipated preseason matchup, but it just happened to be the opening game of the college football season so many people watched it.  If it had been another Saturday afternoon game, no one, including you, would have watched it, and the performance would not have received nearly as much attention as it did.

Luck's most high-profile performance?  Against a top 10 the University of South Central team on college gameday, with more of the nation watching.  So regardless, Luck has the better high-profile performance.

The Voldemort trophy if for the player who performed best in the college season.

So why do you believe RG3 performed best in the college season?  Similarly, why do you and others believe Luck does not deserve it over other candidates?

Well, Luck's worst game was in one of the biggest games of the college football season against Oregon.  Everyone watched that game, and because he didn't perform well enough, more people felt he was overrated.  The loss also made everyone forget about the the University of South Central game.

RG3's worst game?  Against Oklahoma State (2 INTs) in a regular conference game with no BCS implications for Baylor.  However, did the nation watch that game?  No, because it did not receive nearly as much hype as Stanford-Oregon.  I guarantee if the Baylor-Oklahoma State game had as much attention and was as important for the BCS as Stanford-Oregon, you and everyone else would have jumped off the RG3 bandwagon with his performance.

So basically, you only think RG3 deserves it because he didn't "flop" in a nationally-televised game.  But that's because his worst performances were not in high-profile games.

Ergo, Luck deserves it.

[metsjetsfan]

Completely agree, but not sure what your point is. They haven't had as good a season as RG3 and Luck, so they shouldn't be in the Voldemort discussion. Right?

...Moore and Keenum both have more passing yds and TDs, a higher completion %, fewer INTs, and higher QB ratings than Luck.  Keenum had the best statistical season for a QB in history.  So they have had "as good a season as RG3 and Luck" if not better.  Let's also keep in mind that if Andrew were not playing in a power-running offense, everyone agrees that his stats would easily be just as gaudy as other QBs.

Why is neither Keenum nor Moore in the Voldemort discussion now?  Boise State and Houston each have 1 loss, and each QB was unfortunate that the 1 loss came in their most important games.

RG3 has 3 losses, but none of them were in essential games that influenced their ranking or BCS chances.  His most high-profile performances were against 2-loss TCU and 3-loss Oklahoma (which clearly has not matched preseason hype).  He also got very lucky in the TCU game.  It was not a highly-anticipated preseason matchup, but it just happened to be the opening game of the college football season so many people watched it.  If it had been another Saturday afternoon game, no one, including you, would have watched it, and the performance would not have received nearly as much attention as it did.

Luck's most high-profile performance?  Against a top 10 the University of South Central team on college gameday, with more of the nation watching.  So regardless, Luck has the better high-profile performance.

The Voldemort trophy if for the player who performed best in the college season.

So why do you believe RG3 performed best in the college season?  Similarly, why do you and others believe Luck does not deserve it over other candidates?

Well, Luck's worst game was in one of the biggest games of the college football season against Oregon.  Everyone watched that game, and because he didn't perform well enough, more people felt he was overrated.  The loss also made everyone forget about the the University of South Central game.

RG3's worst game?  Against Oklahoma State (2 INTs) in a regular conference game with no BCS implications for Baylor.  However, did the nation watch that game?  No, because it did not receive nearly as much hype as Stanford-Oregon.  I guarantee if the Baylor-Oklahoma State game had as much attention and was as important for the BCS as Stanford-Oregon, you and everyone else would have jumped off the RG3 bandwagon with his performance.

So basically, you only think RG3 deserves it because he didn't "flop" in a nationally-televised game.  But that's because his worst performances were not in high-profile games.

Ergo, Luck deserves it.