Let's not award more deserving kids like other states, who have better football than KY, do: It might spoil them.

Should be for that year. Player not team record.

Should be for that year. Player not team record.

 

So a kid is on a team that is 2-8 and you would give them an award?

If they are the best player in the state yes. Mr Football is for he best player,no? Not best team.

If they are the best player in the state yes. Mr Football is for he best player,no? Not best team.

 

I think the award should go to a winner.

I think the award should go to a winner.

 

So an average talent with crazy stats on Trinity, BG or some other powerhouse is automatically the best player in the state?

I like to think of Mr Football as an individual who has been a proven winner.. on and off the field... Over the course of the 4 years of high school. Possibly someone who, because of their play, has changed how other teams view them and the team (good way). Mr Football should be someone that not only wins more than they lose but has proven to step up in the big games to lift their team to victory.

 

Personally love when a player has brought their school to new territory and continues to carry that tradition each year they've played. (winning ways).

 

What would that team be like without said player? What separates them over some other players they may of not won Mr Football at same school?

What about the best player in he state that takes a would be 0-10 team to 5-5 and competitive in the other games. By definition it should not be the best player on a team but the best player.

I say base it on only the senior year, not a career. What would you do with a kid who excelled as a sophomore and junior but due to injury (or grades or whatever) played only 2 games his senior year? Can you give him the award? What about a kid who came on like gangbusters and was clearly the best his senior year but was only average or so his prior years? Do you punish him for being a late bloomer?

It may not carry the weight of "Mr. Football," but the Kentucky Football Coaches Association does name a Player of the Year for all six classes during the state finals. I guess no one pays attention.

It may not carry the weight of "Mr. Football," but the Kentucky Football Coaches Association does name a Player of the Year for all six classes during the state finals. I guess no one pays attention.

 

I think some do. After many years of Mr. Basketball when Mr. Football started in the 80's it became the focus for many fans.

I think the award should go to a winner.

 

So you wouldn't have awarded Anthony Davis who played basketball for UK an award because he only won 6 games as a junior and I think 7 games as a senior? I think we can call this young man a winner,,, wouldn't you agree?

Lets say a player puts up 1,800 rushing yards and 1,200 passing yards at a 1A school while playing defense, returning punts, etc. and wins Mr. Football. Great year without a doubt and the kid definitively deserves recognition. Could that same player put up the same numbers against a strong 6A schedule? Maybe so, maybe not. On the flip side, lets say a kid puts up 800 yards receiving and 500 yards rushing and returns punts and kickoffs while playing Trinity's schedule. Could they put up the much higher numbers versus a 1A schedule? I would say more likely than the aforementioned, but still you never know.

 

To me, Mr. Football represents the best player in the state. There is no way to tell who that might be when the discrepancy between SOS and talent competed against is so vast in a six class system. Thus, why not award a Mr. Football for all classes. With the system the way it is, I would venture to say that Mr. Football should go to a 5A/6A school 95% of the time.

 

Kentucky's system is broken in my opinion and should come up to par with the way Tennessee (for example) does it.

 

This has been argued for some time I know.

If you're going to give an individual award to a player in the "ultimate team sport", win/loss record seems hypocritical. Placing that player on a good team will probably give you mixed results. Surrounded by better players is a good thing, but having to spread the wealth doesn't help. I believe it needs to be about stats, sos, character, & most importantly...intangibles, all within a single season. Basing it on career stats eliminates players who may have hardships somewhere along the way.