fwiw, GB isn't saying that tebow isn't better than locker/harris/etc, just that the latter are more valuable to their team- as in, if UF lost tebow tomorrow, they'd still be in decent shape to compete with brantley, (whereas the opposite cannot be true for other said players).

We know what he is saying but it doesn't mean much. That long post just seems like someone wanting to hear (read) themselves talk .

C-Vig, you're failing pretty epically here. You really should go back through and (re?) read GB's posts before you keep trying to respond. Every time you either A) Claim Tebow > Locker or B) Give the impression that you think ANYONE in this thread disagrees with you, it makes you look like an idiot to anyone who read everything GB wrote*.

* I realize I might be the only one who actually did this.

You guys are arguing about different things though. At no point did GB say Tebow isn't the best player in cfb. What said he was

He's not arguing Tebow's quality.

Also, he clearly weighs a player's value, relative to their team's talent, very highly, probably higher than most people.

You can make an argument against his use of a players value vs. his teammates, but right now you're wasting your breath (finger...use?) arguing about how good Tebow is. Everyone knows he's good. We're talking theoretically about the Heisman as it stands today.

I think putting Locker as your #1 Heisman ballot is much more epic failing.

This isn't an MVP award. If Tebow had the second best QB in the country as his backup, and Tebow took all the snaps and was the best player in the country, he should win the Heisman. Not some guy who was a worse player but had a backup in a wheelchair.

Well, I personally wouldn't have Locker in my top 5, partially because I'm not quite as convinced as GB that he's proven his value *yet*, and partially because I view the Heisman as more of a "best player" award than a "most valuable" award. I think there's a very strong argument that GB is right and the most valuable college player is in fact Locker, and since the Heisman is not a very well defined award, it's reasonable to view it as an "MVP" equivalent, and if you look at it as such, it's reasonable to put Locker #1.

I don't think it is reasonable at all to view it as an MVP award. The Heisman goes to the most outstanding player in college football. Even wiki says so!

You're right, I pretty much didn't read much after the list. And the whole "MVP" argument (that I've read now) is completely ridiculous anyway. GB has been accused of over the top Pac-10 homerism for a long time, it's not some huge coincidence that I pointed out, being brilliant and all. College football fans make the Lakers fans in Threadzilla look impartial

Anyway I dunno why I enter college football threads, sorry for any unnecessary silliness. Done now.

http://www.heisman.com/history/heisman-trophy.html

http://www.heisman.com/

And since "outstanding" is so clearly defined, you're obviously right!

I do think accounting for the quality of the backup is done, VORP is more meaningful. Here's my opinion of most likely regular season record for a few different hypothetical teams though:

Florida with Tebow at QB: 11-1 (11.3 if you allow decimals)
Florida with Locker at QB: 11-1 (10.7)
Florida with the #120 QB in the country: 9-3
Washington with Tebow at QB: 7-5
Washington with Locker at QB: 6-6
Washington with the #120 QB in the country: 1-11

Given the rest of the roster, Florida is in much better shape to remain successful with a crappy QB, while Washington benefits far more from having a top notch QB.

Tebow is a better QB than Locker, LDO. Locker is FAR more valuable to the team he plays for than Tebow is, AINEC.

Good post but your last point, even if right, is a really silly way to vote for the Heisman.

OK done now for reals, won't derail anymore

Are you serious?

You really are going to try and pull "most valuable" out of "most oustanding?" They are two different things.

I know you and GB are attached at the hip, but at least try to think for yourself.

If all of the pro sports leagues didn't have ******ed MVP awards we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Also, VORP is a really dumb stat when you define replacement player as the actual replacement backup and not some generalized replacement level, because pretty much that turns the Heisman into best player on a ****ty team, which is a pretty stupid award.

If I had a Heisman vote, I would give it to the player I thought was the best in college football, regardless of value to his team. That's how I personally interpret the award. However, I also think drastically increasing your teams expected wins singlehandedly is quite outstanding, and I don't see anything in the formal explanation of the Heisman Trophy to convince me that there's anything wrong with equating "outstanding" to "valuable", if that's what floats your boat.

A) I already said Locker isn't in my top five, and that I don't personally use "most valuable" as my criteria for the Heisman.

B) If you think GB and I are attached at the hip, you clearly haven't looked at a schedule lately. He can go **** himself this week. Break a leg Best

It's all fair to me. I mean I personally have no idea who the Heisman is supposed to go to. The "most outstanding" player last year was not Sam Bradford imo, it was Tebow.

That said I do see *some* value in having a 'most valuable' component to your equation, whatever it may be. If you have a guy singlehandedly dragging a sorry ass team, he deserves recognition. How much you give is up to you (or the voters, who I'm pretty sure don't know either.)

Look at some of the guys who have won or been finalists. You have everyone from Ken Dorsey- a pretty mediocre player imo on a ****ing sick team. Then you have Eric Crouch, a guy who was more of a one man show. Then you have Colt Brennan who put up mad #'s.

My point is, I dont think the voters, would all sit and give you the same criteria for their votes. Most Outstanding is brutal to define. To put it another way, to some people, Utah was the 'most outstanding' team in cfb last year, to others it was Florida.

fwiw, I don't even think institutions and leagues who give out actual "MVP" awards know how to define them (read, NBA), but that's another conversation altogether.

I think discounting a players outstandingness (I know this isn't a word) because their backup is very good when you vote on the Heisman trophy is ludicrous.

The flaw in their argument for Locker is that if Tebow played for Washington he'd be the MVP. In this scenario Locker is benefited greatly by the fact that all the other Washington Huskies suck. It's not like Locker is the best player in the country and he just plays on crap team. If you put McCoy/Bradford/Tebow, even going well beyond that QBs #4-10, Washington would be better than they are with Locker. Basically they are giving the Heisman to whoever has the worst supporting cast while being above average at their position individually, while also having a bad backup.

Any definition of outstanding that motivates you to murder your backup is pretty dumb imo.

Yupppppppppp

I agree 100%. The part of GB's argument where he mentioned the specific quality of each quarterback's backup was highly ******ed, and counterproductive to his argument.

I do think that discounting a QB's outstandingness (this should be a word) because is WRs and OL are amazing has some merit, however. If Florida and Washington played identical schedules, and Locker and Tebow posted identical stats (obviously this wouldn't actually happen, since Tebow is better, but roll with the hypothetical), then in that case it would be clear that Locker was better. You wouldn't say "well, they both put up the same stats, so they're equal, and so the guy who won more games is better". You'd say "Locker had nothing to work with, Tebow had every weapon he could want, and Locker matched him! Locker >>> Tebow."

Obviously in actuality it's a lot less extreme than that. For one thing they don't have the same stats, Tebow's stats are better. For another thing, they haven't played the same schedule in any way, so it's really hard to compare. The basic point still remains though, that performing well with a terrible supporting cast is more impressive (hey look, another possible synonym for "outstanding") than performing well with a great supporting cast.

I agree with that.

It's a delicate line, I just think GB jumped 20 yards over it Golden Tate style with his Locker/Tebow value stuff.

Common ground!!! WOOT!!!

Wait, this isn't how an argument on the internet is supposed to end... uh... your a moran!!!1

Lol you people can't read for ****. Y'all spend 15 minutes arguing against a point I didn't even make, then jump to the next point that I didn't even make and argue against that.

I pointed out "most valuable" as an example of something that was correct, but not relevant, and as an example of how vague the definition is, and as an example of a way that you can make crazy cases for certain players if you fit the criteria right.

1. Tim Tebow is the best football player in the country. I even DIRECTLY SAID that in a post, but somehow there are like 20 posts claiming that I said that Locker > Tebow.

2. Jake Locker is 'more valuable' because his backups suck. "Valuable" isn't relevant at all. So why did I bring it up? Because it's a ridiculous way to decide who wins the heisman, just like #1 is. (Plus, if you actually READ my g-d post, you'll see that I brought it up b/c C-vig said "TEBOW IS THE MOST VALUABLE" to which I was just being a nit and saying "actually, he's not." I'll take the blame since this is the net and I shouldn't expect people to be able to read through my entire post and discern that it was re: somebody else's post and outside the flow of discussion)



Tebow's the best player, and very little is going to change our opinion of that - so why not just give him the Heisman right now? Because you still gotta play the games, that's why.

Just like we know that pretty much no matter what, Florida is better than and would be favored over Cincinnati. But if Cincy goes 12-0 and UF goes 11-2 then **** Cincy goes to the title and UF stays home. You gotta play the games. If UCLA somehow goes 12-0 and wins all their games by 3 points, and Texas goes 12-0 but then loses in the Big-12CG, gg Texas even though everybody knows Texas > UCLA.


Which brings us to my point which you guys have been ignoring:

Through a VERY SMALL three game sample size, I think that Locker has been the most outstanding player in the country.

Tebow isn't even in the picture yet - he's played one game that wasn't a scrimmage, and he played very poorly (by his high standards) in that game. I have no doubt that he will play much better as the season wears on.

As of now, there are only three players even worth mentioning: Locker, Best and Harris. I think Jahvid's a bit overrated since (a) Cal as a football team is underrated, and he gets a lot of credit for the team's surprising accomplishments and (b) he is getting a ton of love for scoring 5 TDs on TV against Minnesota, but two of those were because WRs caught bombs and got tackled at the 2 yard line. Jahvid has been very impressive no doubt, but for SI to put him as the #1 so far is a pretty big stretch. Not saying he can't get there, but in my mind he is CLEARLY behind:

Jacory Harris led his team to two huge victories against good teams and looked brilliant and composed and unfazed doing it and was the best player on the field by far both times.

Jake Locker took an 0-12 Washington team, infused them with life, went toe to toe with LSU and took over the game offensively, then led them to a win over Idaho to snap a 15 game losing streak (tbh, take Locker out of the game and Idaho and Washington are pretty darn similar football teams), and then was efficient and careful for 59 minutes against one of the best defenses in the nation, scored his team's only TD and then led the game winning drive when all the pressure in the world was on his shoulders.


To be clear:

1. I have not ONCE in this thread said that Locker is better than Tebow
2. I have NOT ONCE in this thread said that "value" should determine who gets the Heisman. I mentioned it casually as an aside, and then pointed out a nitpick in somebody else's post to demonstrate that outstanding != valuable, and explained what valuable meant.