[91Bear]

True, but he won the conference.

Doesn't that depend on how other teams do?  If Stanford won the conference with three losses and Baylor didn't - each team still had only three losses.  Baylor actually has a higher regular season win percentage because the Indians only played 11 games in 1970.  Both teams defeated three ranked opponents. Stanford did go 6-1 in conference.  Baylor 6-3.

I'm not trying to slam Stanford, just pointing out that there has been a Voldemort winner with three losses.  The award SHOULD go to the nation's most outstanding player.  Lately, it has devolved into a popularity contest - the best player on the best team, which, to me, is devaluing the award.

All these arguments that Baylor has more talent at receiver is utter hogwash.  Since when has Baylor been able to outrecruit Stanford? 

[91Bear]

True, but he won the conference.

Doesn't that depend on how other teams do?  If Stanford won the conference with three losses and Baylor didn't - each team still had only three losses.  Baylor actually has a higher regular season win percentage because the Indians only played 11 games in 1970.  Both teams defeated three ranked opponents. Stanford did go 6-1 in conference.  Baylor 6-3.

I'm not trying to slam Stanford, just pointing out that there has been a Voldemort winner with three losses.  The award SHOULD go to the nation's most outstanding player.  Lately, it has devolved into a popularity contest - the best player on the best team, which, to me, is devaluing the award.

All these arguments that Baylor has more talent at receiver is utter hogwash.  Since when has Baylor been able to outrecruit Stanford?