Do they mean anything?

Has anyone else noticed that college football seems to give out about a billion awards to individual players? They're all named after people that nobody except someone looking to work on an ESPN research desk has ever heard of and in reality this seems pretty appropriate because with so many awards they can't really mean anything right?

There's the John Doe something or another best all around player award. Which, generally goes to a quarterback. There's the some old dude from the 1930s best offensive player award. Which also seems to go to quarterbacks. There's the [insert person of your choice] award for most service award. Which, went to Tebow, who is a quarterback but this award had more to do with his going to prisons and telling people about God and how much God helps him on the field and blah blah blah.

(A quick aside. If God helps Tim Tebow on the field but not the other players then shouldn't the other players find someone else to ask for help? Just a thought. Why's god like Tebow so much? It can' be his good looks becuase let's face it, that kid's face looks like he took on an All American Linebacker during one of his designed run plays without a helmet. But anyway, those points don't matter.)

It just seems to me that awards are really only given their value when they are rare. In the sport of triathlon, which I have since retired, I used to get insanely annoyed at awards ceremonies because in the larger categories they're recognize dudes that came in like 12th place. What does that mean? 12th place? It means that they're old and a lot of other old people are signing up for that race and so percentage wise 12th place was like top 5% or something. But that shouldn't matter. 12th place means you got your butt kicked by 11 other dudes and maybe next time you should run faster. But for the organizers it made sense to give out that many places because it made people feel valued and they were more likely to return for subsequent years since they got a crappy medal or coffee mug or something else to put in their office at work and show to friends.

Just like in triathlon, recognizing the 12th best dude doesn't mean anything if every person in college football seems to be getting an award for something. Or, every quarterback rather. The Heisman is really no exception. For someone other than a quarterback to win the Heisman there needs to be a lot of factors working in that persons favor other than what they do on the field. You won't hear me argue that the quarterback isn't the most vital part to any team. They are. But if you put the best quarterback ever concieved (maybe my immaculate conception like Allen Iverson) on a field with totally useless receivers, a line that is afraid to get touched and running backs who fumble every time they touch the ball, you're going to lose every game. You have to go all the way back to Charles Woodson in 1997 for the last defensive player that won and 1936 to some white dude who played End at Yale before that.

If the Heisman is just an award for the most "exciting" offensive player in the country then call it that. But it strikes me as odd that the Heisman is revered as the highest honor in all of college sports but only a handful of offensive players, mostly quarterbacks are ever really eligible.

In 2007 Michael Crabtree broke every receiving record for the last decade as a true Freshman. He plays for Texas Tech who weren't in the hunt for the Big 12 title much less the National Championship so he wasn't even mentioned until the last week of the season and then only as a footnote. Texas Tech still plays Oklahoma and Texas and all the other Big 12 schools that Sam Bradford plays. Why are Crabtree's numbers less meaningful simply because he plays at Texas Tech? But still, had he won, it'd still be another offensive player winning the award where NO defensive players were even footnotes.

What if a kicker played for Iowa. Iowa is a Big 10 school so they play a conference schedule that if they went undefeated would rank them in the top 5 whether they went on to play for a national title or not. Let's say in this made up season Iowa wins every game in either overtime or on a completed field goal with 1 second left on the play clock. Let's also assume that all of these field goals were 40+ yards. In this scenario, this kicker is clearly the most valuable person on this team. Should he win the Heisman?

What if a defensive end records a sack in ever key 3rd and short or anything and goal for an entire season thus always forcing the other team to punt or settle for a field goal? Should this guy win the Heisman?

I think in the long rambling mess of logic I'd tried to present my key point is simply that there are too many awards and the awards they do give out hardly means what the description of each one says. Just call them what they are. Just give out three or four quarterback of the year awards if that's what you want to do. But don't forget about free safety. Without them you'd have a tough time putting together your highlight reel at the end of the season.