Well, to be honest, it’s an annual award, not a career award. So really, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, no matter how hilarious that outcome would be.

I was actually using the BCS era as a measure of time, but I agree that it isn’t a function of it as well. And yes, I agree that there are a ton of voters out there that are just flat out stupid. The vote for Ball goes a step further, in that it’s damn near comical. I think the exposure thing you alluded to is probably the biggest difference between selecting the Heisman finalists now, and say, 25 years ago.

– NO ONE EVER

I don’t think it’s a function of the BCS, but more a function of just how much football you can watch on TV now. Other winners were more clear cut because that’s who you saw on TV all the time.

Perhaps Te’o gets more of an edge in that case, but Manziel’s performance against Alabama would’ve certainly been nationally televised as well. So perhaps we really don’t see much of a change.

Plus, there is still just the fact that the voters are dumb. Some still refuse to vote for anyone but a senior. Others stick to offense. This is how people like Ball get a vote for no good reason.

I was thinking about this the other day, and started thinking back to a time when there was no BCS and it seemed as though Heisman winners were almost clear cut, or at least down to two candidates. So here’s a question for you Tex. In your opinion, does Manti win the Heisman 20+ years ago in the same circumstances? Or, do you think the blinders were the same? I feel as though it would have been even harder for him to win back then because a defensive player was almost unheard of as a candidate. However, I think they would have taken the integrity part of the award more seriously, and given it’s due weight in their decision making process.

It means what we all suspected: voters do not give a damn. For them it is purely an on-field performance issue these days (and apparently only on the offensive side of the ball).

It isn’t just voters, three computers had NIU 16 or higher (one ranking of 12 tossed), one had them 21, another 25, and only one didn’t rank them (tossed). That put them with an average of 19.

Louisville on the other had four computers leaving them out of the top 25, meaning they had only one top-25 ranking, leaving them with an average of 29.

In short, it wasn’t just the human vote that did this.

But even if it was, why are we putting a 15th ranked team in a bowl series that are supposed to feature the ten best teams in the country? That’s the real question.