It's all narrative. The voting contingent is bloated. It's largely a giant whatever
One of these guys was a Heisman finalist, the other, playing the same position, in the same conference, in one less game, was 2nd team All-Big Ten
78 tackles, 15.5 TFL, 10 sacks, 1 FF, 2 FR, 1 TD
54 tackles, 14.5 TFL, 12 sacks, 2 FF, 1 FR
Wanted to come back to this because it's kinda a marvelous fib. It's an alluring fib, because it's so easy. Of course this one guys if overrated and hypocrisy abounds.
But it's pretty half true.
The only mistake ELA had was that it's actually in the same number of games. The MSU kid (the one on top) put up those numbers in 13 games, including the bowl. Now, that might not be significant, except he went ham in that bowl. At the time they actually vote on awards (voters lack time machines), that fella had these stats.
69 tackles, 14 TFL, 8.5 sacks, 1 FF, 2 FR, 1 TD
Solid numbers, certianly worth 2nd team All-Big Ten. BUT, this fella was in fact first-team All-Big Ten.
The media voted him onto that team. Alas, it was the coaches who did not. Who knows who actually fills those ballots? But in the end, the media "narrative" was that he was a first-teamer.
Now, then comes another layer. For better or worse, there's a sliding scale when it comes to team success/unit success when it comes to things like the Heisman. If you're not on a great team or unit, you have to be stud muffin productive. This MSU fella was not, but what of his team.
Well, it was 6-6. The defense was quite good, 13th in SP+, but worse in more standard metrics: 37th in scoring D,23rd in yards per play allowed. They also had some boom and bust to them. Five conference opponents hit 31 or more points.
Anyway, a good lesson in "Narrative." When people want to believe, they'll find the thing that makes them comfortable. (This isn't to tag ELA, an upstanding citizen here, but to poke at how it got traction in the first place)
