Josh Pate Argues Diego Pavia Should Have Won the Heisman

Heisman Trophy Voting Concerns

• 💡 Josh Pate believes Diego Pavia should have won the Heisman Trophy over Fernando Mendoza, stating Pavia had better stats and was more crucial to his team.
• 🎯 Pate suggests that many Heisman voters may not have paid close attention this year due to a lack of a breakout star on a dominant team and distractions like coaching searches.
• 📌 The voting process is questioned, especially the dramatic shift in odds favoring Mendoza after the Big Ten Championship game, which Pate argues was not a performance that warranted such a swing.

Fernando Mendoza's Performance

• 👏 Pate expresses admiration for Fernando Mendoza's toughness, highlighting his ability to play through a severe injury sustained on the first play of the Big Ten Championship game.
• ✅ Mendoza's performance in the championship game, despite the win, is described as good but not overwhelmingly dominant enough to justify the massive shift in Heisman odds.

The Nature of the Heisman Award

• 🏆 Pate argues that while he respects Mendoza, his personal vote would have gone to Pavia, emphasizing that this doesn't diminish Mendoza's achievements.
• 🏈 The Heisman Trophy is discussed as an award for the most outstanding player, and Pate feels Pavia fit that description more accurately this year.
• 📊 He notes that neither player had a historically great Heisman season, placing them outside the top 10 all-time performances.

Voter Attention and Heisman Odds

• 🔍 Pate points out that Pavia was the favorite going into conference championship Saturday, but Mendoza became the overwhelming favorite afterward, suggesting a lack of consistent voter attention.
• 📈 The significant shift in betting odds, with Mendoza moving from co-favorite to a heavy favorite, is presented as evidence that voters may have made their decisions late in the season based on recent events rather than a full season's evaluation.