You have to realize the gaming press isn't made up of reviews alone. There are many people who each have a say in which one is the best. You said that it's the best in the minds of a lot of reviewers, but obviously not a majority of reviewers. Just cause said reviewers praised a game doesn't mean their whole staff thinks that way.
If you call the people who decide GOTY clowns, you are calling the very same people who reviewed the game with the highest average clowns.
No you still don't get it....
Game of the year should be, assuming the GOTY people are objective and really take all games from that year into account, taking an avarage of all reviews of those games from that year. The game with the highest avarage is objectively speaking the best and, thus, should get the title Game of The Year. In practice, this is not the case and therefore the people who decide GOTY are desulional clowns.
Appart from that I'm stating that a lot of reviewers are idiots. All scores for SS until now have been very good. Ofcourse we can't say if these scores are justified, because we haven't played the game yet, but let's assume the game shouls really be scores within the range of, let's say, 9.7 - 10.0. What you will see is that some reviewers will give the game a 9, for reasons such as 'no voice acting', 'no HD graphics', etc.
Ofcourse when the newest WW2-Shooter-the-same-as-the-one-from-last-month-only-then-with-better-HD-and-more-blood will come out the same reviewer will be like "omg hihihihi so cool, this game deserves a 10+ hihihihihihihihi". Reviewers like that really do exist, and to make things worse, will sometimes be from highly respected review websites. Reviewers like this are idiots.
Summary of text (read only if you are below the age of 16): GOTY deciders are clowns, for not being objective and some reviewers are idiots for being blind.
So, Vibed, if you still don't get it, please re-reads this text, or wait untill you are a few years older.