Question: when should the Heisman voting be done?

[hifigator]

This is beginning to be an even hotter topic. Traditionally, the ballots were mailed out the second week in November and were due back in by the Wednesday after the final "regular season" game, with the presentation the Saturday, four days later. But in recent years, the ballots have been sent in, in wider and wider variance. I remember a couple of years ago, one-third of the ballots had been received with 2 weeks still left in the "season." The Heisman committee responded by instilling electronic voting and sending the ballots a week later. Still, there is a ideological issue.

On one hand, the voting "should" be done on the entire regular season. Therefore, every effort should be taken to vote after all regular season games are complete. That sounds simple enough and makes sense on the surface. However, many west coasters, northeasterners and midwesterners -- whose primary conferences don't feature a conference championship game -- have chosen to intentionally send the ballots in prior to the conference championship games. Their argument is that conference championship games are an unfair advantage for those playing in conferences with title games. Of course a counter argument could be made, that while the extra game is a chance to excel on the National stage, it also gives an extra opportunity to fall flat on your face or get injured. Even though an injury "shouldn't" affect the voting, we all know that at least in the back of many minds, it would.

Another proposal is to vote after bowl season. While that would disrupt the Downtown Athletic Club's plans, that would seem to be the "fairest." And even though that would further distract a handful of student-athletes further into the next semester, I don't think that would be something that couldn't be worked around.

Additionally, while voting at the very end of the season makes sense, other sports specifically don't do this. MLB, NHL and NBA awards for the regular season, are voted on prior to the post season. I'm not sure about hockey, but I think it's the same way.

In essence, I guess there are really a couple of separate issues.

First, when does the "regular" season end? Officially, the conference championships are the culmination of the regular season for conferences that have them. Record books show that. Vegas casinos accept that. But what do you think?

Secondly, even if we accept that conference championships are part of the "regular" season, is it fair that those who play in conferences with title games, have the added game to put up additional numbers as well as the marquee exposure associated with the game itself?

Finally, what do you think about including all games, including bowl games, before voting is accepted?


Thoughts?

[SFHoya99]

It's a dumb award that goes to the right guy maybe 50% of the time.

Voting should be done after the bowl season or at minimum, after the last regular season game.

[hifigator]

Nov 23, 2009 17:35:55 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

It's a dumb award that goes to the right guy maybe 50% of the time.

Voting should be done after the bowl season or at minimum, after the last regular season game.

I agree that it is entirely "unscientific," and doesn't routinely, if even often, go to the most deserving college football player. In fairness, I haven't EVER seen a legitimate yardstick to evaluate candidates by. But my question really doesn't pertain to the award itself, but rather to the timing of the voting. I'm really trying to get a feel for how people feel about the issue, while it is fresh on their minds. I have this posted on a number of "random" sites, and am trying to prove/disprove a few theories.

Getting back to many pro sports, I remember thinking that awards shouldn't be decided until after the entire season was complete. In particular, I remember baseball and basketball seasons where the award went to certain individuals, but when all was "said and done" (after the post season) ... it was clear to the alert fan, that someone else was more deserving. Looking back, I think that, rightly or wrongly, there is an historic (I still think it should be wrong to use 'an' historic ...) principle that the award in question, specifically reflects the regular season. That much is relatively obvious. But looking further, I think that the award, in many cases, specifically ignores the post-season. As I think about it, I don't think this is the same principle that relates to college football. Additionally, I remember similar awards for "coaches of the year," that went to coaches whose teams exceeded expectations for sure, but where other coaches ultimately led their also "sub-elite" teams to championships.

Either way, my point is what the various opinions, coming from different perspectives think on the issue.

In any case, for those who subscribe to the "final regular season game" philosophy, what is your feeling for conference championship games? And for those who adopt the "after all games" (including bowls), how would you suggest weighing bowl performances vs. the "body of work?"

[SFHoya99]

In pro sports, the fact that the awards are regular season only is not based on history, it is determined by the award. The NBA MVP award is really the NBA Regular Season MVP Award. To vote using the playoffs would be to change the terms of the award.

As far as I know, the Heisman does not specify.

[theexorcist]

Nov 24, 2009 11:01:48 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

In pro sports, the fact that the awards are regular season only is not based on history, it is determined by the award. The NBA MVP award is really the NBA Regular Season MVP Award. To vote using the playoffs would be to change the terms of the award.

As far as I know, the Heisman does not specify.

It wouldn't change the terms of the award - it's awarded to the "Most Outstanding College Football Player in the United States". You'd change when voting's done, and what's considered, but that's it. Adding the bowls (or playoffs - in your face, BCS!) to the performance is reasonable.

[hifigator]

I agree with Exorcist. SF, I understand the distinction in pro sports, but I still don't necessarily agree with it, especially with "Coach of the Year." I think that such an award being voted on before the post season is flawed.

In the case of the Heisman, I think it's probably more a matter of history and how it's always been done. But as the dynamics of the college football season changes, I think it makes more sense to evolve with the times. Remember, bowls used to be a prestigious reward that a relatively scarce percentage of teams got to enjoy. And of course the conference championship games are a relatively recent phenomenon. Rather than trying to keep to tradition and esentially exclude what is not very arguably, the most important part of the season in many cases, I think the best option is to move the voting to the real end of the season.

[RDF]

The Award means nothing and is a joke--especially when the likes of Eric Crouch, Jason White, Chris Weinke, Gino Toretta, David Klingler, Ty Detmer, Andre Ware, were awarded it based on......?

The best player in country is often on defensive side of the ball and when they aren't factored in--it just makes a mockery of naming this award after the "Best Player".

Just call it the Offensive Player of The Year who plays on a Winning Team.

[hifigator]

Nov 24, 2009 17:17:36 GMT -5 RDF said:

The Award means nothing and is a joke--especially when the likes of Eric Crouch, Jason White, Chris Weinke, Gino Toretta, David Klingler, Ty Detmer, Andre Ware, were awarded it based on......?

The best player in country is often on defensive side of the ball and when they aren't factored in--it just makes a mockery of naming this award after the "Best Player".

Just call it the Offensive Player of The Year who plays on a Winning Team.

RDF, I acknowledged as much earlier this thread. But my question doesn't concern the importance/accuracy of the award, but rather administratively, how the voting should be done. I agree that guys like Eric Berry from Tennessee, that d-lineman from Nebraska -- Soh? -- or even guys like Brandon Spikes or Joe Haden could be the "Most Outstanding Player" in college football. But even with more recognition for defensive players, the question still remains:

when should the voting be done? Sure, given 12 sanctioned games by the NCAA, could suggest a "fair" voting that is done after those 12 games. But is that the best? If you take it to the other extreme, then voting after the bowls would discriminate against great players from crappy teams that don't even make a bowl game. And of course, the "traditional" view of voting at "the end" of the regular season, only complicates matters further with the recent advent of the conference championship games.

[RDF]

Voting should be done BEFORE the season--as that is when it's often decided.

[jgalt]

Nov 25, 2009 18:12:38 GMT -5 RDF said:

Voting should be done BEFORE the season--as that is when it's often decided.

I agree they already do this with the national championship

[hifigator]

Nevermind ... can't carry on a serious conversation with malcontents.

For giggles though, jgalt, you suggest that the national championship has already been decided. Who won? And for extra credit, who should have?