Like everyone else on here, giving my opinion.

 

So then should he have just been awarded prior to the season?

So then should he have just been awarded prior to the season?

 

No.

No.

 

Then, in your opinion, he did enough prior to 2019 and in only 13 games that outweighed everyone else in consideration?

It's as if people are condemning Allen for having an injury.

 

Those 13 games were pretty indicative what kind of season he was having, and would have had barring any injury. I don't think anyone can deny what a special and incredible talent he is, and without doubt would have received the award if he had played a full season, and while the other candidates are fantastic players, it's hard not to recognize him as being the best, full season or not.

 

Let us not forget either that a couple of the other fine candidates also lost significant playing time due to their injuries as well, so judging by the vitriol being spewed here they might've suffered the same criticism if they had won.

 

Can we just be happy for the kid...jeez ???

Then, in your opinion, he did enough prior to 2019 and in only 13 games that outweighed everyone else in consideration?

 

Yes. But an argument could me made for all of the candidates. But those given the task chose Mr. Allen.

His 13 games probably do out weigh what anyone else did...that said, it wouldn't have bothered me if he'd have gotten passed over either.

 

I guess the thing that most would need to answer how many games does a player "need" to play to qualify in your mind?

 

What if he had been injured and missed the first 15 games then comes in and scores 50 points a game the last 13 games...would he not then be considered the best?

What teams did he play against in his 13 games?

What teams did he play against in his 13 games?

Who do you think should have won?

His 13 games probably do out weigh what anyone else did...that said, it wouldn't have bothered me if he'd have gotten passed over either.

 

I guess the thing that most would need to answer how many games does a player "need" to play to qualify in your mind?

 

What if he had been injured and missed the first 15 games then comes in and scores 50 points a game the last 13 games...would he not then be considered the best?

 

Well first, it needs to be officially determined whether it's an award based on a career or their senior season. That is a very different award.

 

To answer your question JD, IMO, they need to play AT LEAST 75% of the games, AND it shouldn't be awarded until after the Sweet 16.

Who do you think should have won?

 

Not Dontaie Allen.

 

Tandy probably would have been my pick, followed by Johnson.

Well first, it needs to be officially determined whether it's an award based on a career or their senior season. That is a very different award.

 

To answer your question JD, IMO, they need to play AT LEAST 75% of the games, AND it shouldn't be awarded until after the Sweet 16.

 

I disagree with awarding it after the Sweet 16, that would put way too much weight on the performance in those few games. You could have a decent player get hot in the Sweet 16 and captivate the voters while the best player may have been eliminated in the regionals.

 

I think it's pretty much always been considered a senior year award...but I'm sure just like in all voted for awards the voters let past performance into their mindset when voting.

 

If it's 75% or 80% or whatever, they should announce that at the beginning to the voters that players playing less than X amount of games will not be considered.

 

I still think if he had began the year injured, then ended the season the way he started no one would have an issue with him winning.

I'll preface this with the fact that I am a UHA grad and fan, so I am a bit biased haha.

 

And let's be real, Tandy had a better career if we want to be technical. And even if you think the careers are close, the senior year should matter.

 

Look at the level of competition he played. Look at where he led his team. Look at the numbers. And the eye test sold it for me.

Not Dontaie Allen.

 

Tandy probably would have been my pick, followed by Johnson.

 

Can't deny the talent with your picks, but like it or not, Dontaie Allen still won. :lol2:

I disagree with awarding it after the Sweet 16, that would put way too much weight on the performance in those few games. You could have a decent player get hot in the Sweet 16 and captivate the voters while the best player may have been eliminated in the regionals.

 

I think it's pretty much always been considered a senior year award...but I'm sure just like in all voted for awards the voters let past performance into their mindset when voting.

 

If it's 75% or 80% or whatever, they should announce that at the beginning to the voters that players playing less than X amount of games will not be considered.

 

I still think if he had began the year injured, then ended the season the way he started no one would have an issue with him winning.

 

Just to play Devil's Advocate... What if two players in consideration make the Sweet 16, after having very similar success in the regular season. If one shines in the Sweet 16, against the best the state has to offer, that doesn't warrant any consideration?

Can't deny the talent with your picks, but like it or not, Dontaie Allen still won. :lol2:

 

And we know why.