[metsjetsfan]

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.

Plunkett won the Voldemort in 1970.  If you look at winners of the past decade, only Tebow was on a team that had as many 3 losses.

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. 

I agree: it should go to the nation's most outstanding player.

Ergo, Luck deserves it.

The question, then, is how do you define "outstanding"?

Lately, it has devolved into a popularity contest - the best player on the best team, which, to me, is devaluing the award.

I used to agree...but now I think differently.  It's who had the best game most recently.

If Luck had his U$C game this past weekend, I guarantee he wins the Voldemort, regardless of the Oregon loss.  Likewise, if RG3 played against OK State this past week and Texas in week 8, I guarantee he wouldn't even be a finalist.

And that's just not right.  But it's why RG3 is the frontrunner, Luck may be snubbed, and I am pissed.

All these arguments that Baylor has more talent at receiver is utter hogwash. 

Lol.

[metsjetsfan]

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.

Plunkett won the Voldemort in 1970.  If you look at winners of the past decade, only Tebow was on a team that had as many 3 losses.

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. 

I agree: it should go to the nation's most outstanding player.

Ergo, Luck deserves it.

The question, then, is how do you define "outstanding"?

Lately, it has devolved into a popularity contest - the best player on the best team, which, to me, is devaluing the award.

I used to agree...but now I think differently.  It's who had the best game most recently.

If Luck had his U$C game this past weekend, I guarantee he wins the Voldemort, regardless of the Oregon loss.  Likewise, if RG3 played against OK State this past week and Texas in week 8, I guarantee he wouldn't even be a finalist.

And that's just not right.  But it's why RG3 is the frontrunner, Luck may be snubbed, and I am pissed.

All these arguments that Baylor has more talent at receiver is utter hogwash. 

Lol.