That’s a fair point but I think it’s always been considered as best and fairest award. For me the best player is the player who turns up and delivers at the highest level, the most consistently. I think a rating system of 1-10 by match for each player would be a better way to do it. There should be a cut off (I.e. player has to of played 80% of matches) and then you give it to the player with the highest average rating.
They could do that. Pick 10 analysts and require at least 8 of them to watch each game. Whichever of the 8-10 rate it get their rankings averaged and that is the players score for that round.
Highest rated player for 80%+ games (or whatever the cut off is) wins.
Put some guidelines in place. If a dude subs on for 5 minutes (or gets hurt early) and barely does anything is that a 5? A 1? A 1-3 depending on just how little they do?
What is a realistic rating for someone like Tuks who comes on for 10ish but is able to do a lot?
Etc
Just get everyone on roughly same page how they are assessing things other than 60+ minute players.
Maybe you have to play 80% of season but you also lose 1% off your final score for every game you miss because someone who plays more should be more likely to win?
The way they have it at the moment generates an MVP which is fine if everyone treats it as such.
