I get your point but I’m interpreting a part of your argument that the OU system QBs don’t deserve the heisman. I would agree Tua deserves it more than Kyler, but the other 3 QBs had absolutely no real competition in the heisman race.
My point is that OU system quarterbacks don't deserve all the Heismans. I can debate the criteria further I suppose, but really when you get to the point that a school has one championship since 99, and at the same position they have 5 out of 7 full time starters go to New York, with at least 3 of them winning... that's giving them too much credit.
I mean even people here are agreeing that Murray wins this if not for Tua. However, we then have to go back and say hey wait, why on earth would 4 out of the past 7 full time starters at any position on any team actually deserve Heisman trophies? Especially considering
none of them won championships! I'm not trying to strip them all of trophies, just pointing out that this is becoming absurd. As B1g pointed out, Tebow gets passed up, but he won the one that mattered didn't he? And that's the story of the Oklahoma quarterbacks, at this point they're just racking up stats and getting a trophy even if they're not the most dominant player in college football.
But, let's go ahead and take a look back over the years shall we?
In 2000 Weinke won, while Heupel (the Oklahoma quarterback) finished second. Who was third in voting? Drew Brees. Who was fourth in voting? LaDainian Tomlinson. LD rushed for over 2000 yards and 20 TDs by the way.
In 2003 Jason White won, not the championship, he lost that. But he won the Heisman. Larry Fitzgerald was second. Eli Manning was third.
We already covered 2008, where Tim Tebow finished third while Bradford won. Well he didn't beat Tebow on the field, he lost but he beat Tebow in the Heisman race.
We know Baker won last year, I'm not going to argue too much about that. I would point out that Bryce Love averaged 8.1 yards per rush and had over 2000 yards though.
I'm not saying none of those guys deserve anything. Not at all. But I'm saying we're now discussing Tua vs. Murray, where Murray stats are clearly skewed in his favor by circumstance, and even here some people are giving Murray too much credit. Is he good? Sure, is he on Tua's level? Absolutely not.
I think the voters will get it right, but some people are just going to look at yards and TDs and vote, once again, for the Oklahoma guy. Why think when you can just do that?