I don't know....Reddick had some pretty ridic stats on a pretty ridic talented team as far as college ball goes.
What happens after the award is irrelevant.
Well when discussing "the worst to win the award" in retrospect don't you have to consider what happened after?
I don't know. NBA is such a different game than NCAA.
It's pretty reasonable that a player can be dominate at one and get lost in the other. Given that, I don't think you can consider it.
Talent is talent, if a player is benefiting from a coaches system isn't that a bright shining light that they may not be the best player in the country? You know like TT QBs winning the Hypesman. I think it also exposes who may have benefited from being the best player on the best team and who may have benefited from hype from lazy national basketball media who only try to see the best teams.
Talent is measured against peers. it's relative. Added size, speed and strength of the Association equalizes.
A guy can easily be the best forward among other 18-22 yr old but hit the Association and all of a sudden be up against a wider age group of taller, stronger, and faster players.
As for lazy voters, I am fully on board with your point on that. I hate how obvious many are as well as the thought of so many careers and future careers being effected by someone who is simply hearing a score and a limited stat line on ESPN, then ranking or voting a certain way based on nothing else. Unfortunately, the system is so large I don't have a better solution.