Before they do the vote let me say how much I hate the award. It should be renamed the QB/RB award on top of the other shit award. The idea the the best player in college football can't be a lineman, Line Backer, Defensive back, Wide receiver etc is just silly.

I don't project the Heisman winner to be a great pro, just the best player in college football. The award needs to die.

Rant off.

So you're a Nebraska fan? My guess is had Suh not had the game he had against Texas, he wouldn't have even been invited to the show. He had a great season, but nowhere near the type of season to award him the best player in the country.

Protip: the best player in college this year didn't play defense.

I agree completely. Suh should have won, hands down. But, I'm happier with Ingram than McCoy.

My list: Suh, Ingram, Gerhart, Mccoy, Tebow (of the people who were there. CJ Spiller should have been invited over Tebow, and I'm a FL fan)

Gotta disagree with you about Suh Neesha. He should have won it this year. And while Ingram was good he was neither great nor the best running back in college this year. The 2 best players I saw this year were hands down Suh and C.J. Spiller.

But my rant is against the award in general. The is no way in hell if its a genuine award that Its limited almost exclusively to 2 positions.

I have to admit to a Nebraska bias as I have been a husker fan for decades and have seen a game in Lincoln 5 years running now.

Let me ask you this: How can you honestly say that CJ Spiller was the better player this year than Toby Gerhart?

Gerhart: 1736 yards, 26 TD
Spiller: 1145 yards, 11 TD

While I agree with the general premise of your argument, I just don't think you're being as objective as you could be.

And for the record, had I had a vote, it would have gone to Gerhart. I think Tebow and McCoy both had their chances to win the Heisman in their Conference Championship games but neither stood out. I don't include Ingram in that because I don't think he was the best RB in the country to begin with. That leaves Gerhart as the most consistant and deserving person to me.

Oh, and another thing I hate. How does Gerhart win the Doak Walker award but loses the Heisman to a RB? That reminds me of the stupidity of other award shows (like the MTV VMAs) when Taylor Swift will win "best female video" but Beyonce, who lost "best female video" will win "best overall video." Stupid stupid.

Finally, if the award truly went to the "best player in college football" then I would have given it to Golden Tate. I don't think anyone is as gifted as he is.

Without Ingram Alabama would still be undefeated, without Gerhart Stanford wouldn't have won 4 games on the season.

I would have been happier had Gerhart won it that I am with Ingram. I had a chance to see Spiller play on TV much more than Gerhart and this most likely has me choosing Spiller over Gerhart. I admit Gerhart is a beast but I think Spiller is a better all around player.

Golden Tate I cant speak on as I don't follow the team any more

Spiller is in the top 5 for all-purpose yards per game in the country.

Golden Tate played the 48th best strength of schedule. Spillar, 15th. Golden Tate had Clausen to throw to him, Spillar did it all on his own pretty much. Spillar means more, has done more, and all with less.

I had no idea you were a Notre Dame homer. Previous threads make a lot more sense now.

Regarding Gerhart vs. Ingram. Gerhart played the 64th hardest schedule, Ingram 4th. The Pac-10 doesn't play the same caliber of run-stopping defense that the SEC does.

Did you happen to watch the season? You know, the first 8 games where McElroy laid an egg in pretty much every game he played?

Gerhart was way better than everyone else. But he plays for Stanford who isn't SEC or Big 12 so his present was being invited. Suh is good but Gerhart has a bigger impact on every game he played.

_________________

I assume this is meant for me. And by "previous threads" I assume you mean the one where I specifically said that Notre Dame was one of my least favorite teams in college sports (along with Michigan, UT, and A&M). I recognize talent and am not blinded by my hatred and don't just look at my favorite teams when discussing sports.

Spiller put up good stats on a crappy Clemson team. He broke 100 yards rushing four times (100 receiving once). I think some of you just look at what you want to look at rather than the whole picture. Spiller had an awesome game against GT. The rest of his season was average at best. Good job, give him the Heisman.

That would be the part that you ignored, where I said he was in the top 5 for all-purpose yards per game in college football. No one was talking about Golden Tate for Heisman except you.

Ingrams stats per game along with that teams rushing defense and yards allowed per game (#, ##), amount above or below the teams average allowed
Virginia Tech 150 yards (52, 138.67 ) 11.33
Florida International 56 yards (116, 232.83 ) -176.83
North Texas 91 yards (104, 195.58 ) -104.58
Arkansas 50 yards (68, 150.08 ) -100.08
Kentucky 150 yards (100, 183.17 ) -33.17
Mississippi 172 yards (55, 140.33 ) 31.67
South Carolina 246 yards (46, 137 ) 109
Tennessee 99 yards (58, 142.92 ) -43.92
LSU 144 yards (44, 134.17 ) 9.83
Mississippi State 149 yards (63, 146.00 ) 3
Chattanooga 102 yards (D2 school, 148.8 (66th if D1)) -46.8
Auburn 30 yards (80, 161.67 ) -131.67
Florida 113 Yards (13, 101.62 ) 11.38

average ranking 865/13= 66.54

+/- actual yards in comparison with yards allowed
-460.84



Gerharts stats in the same manner
Washington State 121 (117, 236.42 ) -115.42
Wake Forest 82 (82, 164.33 ) -82.33
San Jose State 113 (119, 259.17 ) -146.17
Washington 200 (66, 148.83 ) 51.17
UCLA 134 (60, 144.42 ) -10.42
Oregon State 96 (25, 114.25 ) -18.25
Arizona 123 (22, 111.92 ) 11.08
Arizona State 125 (18, 108.58 ) 16.42
Oregon 223 (39, 126.67 ) 96.33
USC 178 (42, 131.00 ) 47
California 136 (27, 117.08 ) 18.92
Notre Dame 205 (90, 170.25 ) 34.75

average ranking 707/12= 58.92

+/- actual yards in comparison with average yards allowed
-96.92

I didn't ignore your all-purpose yard comment. It's a pretty stat, but I take it with a large grain of salt. Do you really want to give Damaris Johnson the Heisman because of all-purpose yards?

As for Golden Tate and the Heisman, you're now resorting to taking comments out of context. I would not vote Tate for the Heisman. I was simply saying I think he's the "best player" in college football, which was a reply to Cucullin's original post. Have you seen Tate play? Do you really think I am just throwing his name out because I am a Notre Dame fanboi? Surely you can't be serious.

The 3 worst games Ingram had if we're using your stat are against FIU, Chattanooga and North Texas. He had 10, 8, and 11 carries in those games. When you're a Top-5 team, your best players don't play the whole game. Gerhart has more than 311 carries, Ingram has 249.

That puts Gerhart at 5.58 ypc and Ingram at 6.19 against worse overall competition ... oh and 11 less touchdowns

Dark Charizard is the best Pokemon!

Nuh-uh! I've got a Machamp that can kick his ass!

I liek Mudkipz.

I say this as a NFL fan and not necessarily a college football fan...

Is the Heisman even relevant?

Sure it is nice to win an award. We all like to be recognized for whatever we do. But the fact is, a lot of Heisman winners do nothing in the NFL. I mean if the Heisman is "best college football player", wouldn't that translate into some sort of decent pick in the NFL draft? Not saying first overall, not even saying first round. But I would think that if you are lauded as "best college football player" that would mean you have some football talent that should translate to the NFL. And, in theory, that should equate to (at worst) a first day pick in the draft. And yet there are multiple winners who are picked either on day 2 or not even chosen at all (could be wrong on this, but I thought Gino Toretta (sp) won the award and was never drafted).

But even not looking at the NFL, I just don't think the Heisman is relevant. Quick, without looking at Google or the internet- who won the Heisman award each year this decade? I can name... maybe two at most?

_________________

You can name ... maybe two... and you're not a college football fan. So your point is irrelevant.

It's still the most prestigious award for college football and still [allegedly] rewards the player who had the best season that year (and not necessarily the player who will make the biggest impact in the pros). There have been some Heisman winners who didn't pan out in the pros, but that is not what the award is about.

Jesus, CC you should lose all rights to an opinion in the sports forum because you are a dumb ass.

The Heisman is for the "Most Outstanding College Football Player" of that year.

Yes for every Charlie Ward (QB FSU) who never played a down in the NFL (was a good NBA player however) you will have someone like Barry Sanders, Tim Brown, or Eddie George. Hell Bo Jackson won the Heisman and didn't have that great of an NFL career (he was dominating when he was healthy).

Predicting success in the NFL has no direct correlation to success in college football. I bet there have been just as many busts at the #1 draft slot that were not the Heisman winner as there have Heisman winners that did not have a successful NFL career. Success in the NFL is predicated on so many things the most important is the player getting on the right team. Do you think that Big Ben would have been a two time Super Bowl winner if he wasn't drafted by the Steelers? Do you think that if Eli and Ben were to swap places their relative success would be the same?

There have been 75 winners of the Heisman, only 17 or so were the #1 pick in then NFL Draft. Also, so far there have only been eight Heisman winners to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Oh and to answer your challenge:
2009 - Mark Ingram (RB Alabama)
2008 - Bradford (QB Oklahoma) {Colt McCoy 2nd}
2007 - Tim Tebow (QB Florida) {Darren McFadden 2nd}
2006 - Troy Smith (QB Ohio State) {Darren McFadden 2nd}
2005 - Reggie Bush (RB USC)
2004 - Matt Leinhart (QB USC)
2003 - Jason White (QB Oklahoma)
2002 - Carson Palmer (QB USC)
and that is as far back as I can remember right now.

Past Heisman Winners

Since 1999 there has been 1 (Carson Palmer) maybe two (Reggie Bush) who have been successful in the NFL. This aware means nothing anymore as to what they will do in the NFL.

But I do agree it is the most Prestigious Award in College Football and it will definitely get you drafted.

Also Torretta DID get drafted, although it was the 7th round.

Hell Charlie Ward never even played in the NFL. He went to the NBA.

adding I thought you were a Cincinnati Bengals fan. Did you forget that Carson Palmer won the Heisman? Would you say that he has had a pretty decent pro career? (even though I think the Bengals suck ass)

Leinhart is sitting behind a future Hall of Famer, Reggie Bush has been good - not great.

Ricky Williams has been pretty good (when he has been eligible to play) Charles Woodson is still a good player and he won the trophy over Peyton Manning back in 1997.

Charles Woodson has a shot at defensive player of the year this season, outside chance at league MVP but just like the heisman MVP is almost always for offensive players.

I asked a simple question. Is the Heisman award relevant in today's age? I don't think it is, mostly because (a) it generally only goes to a QB/RB and is relatively biased that way, and (b) it has no bearing on anything related to the NFL- which, to me, is far more important than college football.

Of course my best friend, who happens to be a huge college football fan, disagrees. O well, we have opinions and we disagree. Big deal.

Congratulations to Ingram. I am quite sure you "earned" it and it will help you out tremendously in the future.

O and to Krby... I am not a Bengals fan. Not sure why you would think that. Unless you think it is because I drafted Palmer in our league? If that is the case... el oh el.

_________________

It was foolish the first time you said it, no need to repeat it.

ps: the Hart Trophy is the most useless trophy in all of sports.
pps: I don't like hockey.

There is a very simple reason why the Heisman has mainly gone to QBs and RB - numbers.

Until the last 15-20 or so years we did not have the massive coverage of college football like we do now. It was either covered on radio (for local teams) or in the newspapers for national teams. For Heisman voters they relied on newspaper accounts to greatly aid them on who they would vote for; and the paper would give them stats.

What are the main stats in football? Rushing Yards, Passing Yards, and Touchdowns. Who compiles the majority of those stats? Running Backs, Quarterbacks, and Wide receivers.

It wasn't until the 80's that the sack was treated as a stat and they really didn't run number of tackles in the paper (they still don't for most games)

Also, until specialization started in the late 60's early 70's most of your best players played both Offense and Defense.

i hate college hockey why do they even play the games who cares who the champion is.

cicely stop posting.

_________________

Great post, Droma.