Perhaps the heisman folks need to rethink that running back pose they have on their statue. Come on, how much does it really take to throw off a sportswriter? :hihi:
i didn't even think ingram was the best running back on that team. he may have had the best stats, but to me, Trent Richardson is the more complete back, and Toby Geirhart had a much better year than Ingram, however, i hope the heisman curse continues.
If that was the standard, Bama would have a bunch of these. The mere fact it is to some degree a beauty contest explains why it took us so long.
Cornelius Bennett, Derrick Thomas, Leroy Jordan, Stevenson, Ozzie Newsome, Joe Willie, Shaun Alexander and many others who dominated at their position, .
This is about the best college player that year, not just at their position. The argument would hold more weight if you focused on non skill positions. Voters of the era already picked "skill" players. Bennett Finished 7th behind another LB in the voting, Bozworth 4th Thomas Barry Sanders Troy Aikman Deion Sanders Leroy Jordan Jerry Stovall Bob Bell Terry Baker Ozzie Newsome Earl Campbell Ross Browner Joe Willie Never made top 10 Dick Butkus Tucker Frederickson John Huarte Alexander People of the day had him 7th Ron Dayne was the NCAA Rushing Record Holder Stevenson You have to pick between Dwight and Shaun, they both would have been up in 99. As much as I liked Hannah, he did not make the top 10, yet Rich Glover finished 3rd behind Pruitt and Rodgers that year
My feelings about the Heisman has little to do about skilled positions, or what year they played, or even if they were Bama players. The process has been in the hands of sportswriters. Before the advent of 24 hr. sports news, this vote was often gathered with little more than a snapshot of some of these athletes. In the northeast, mid west, they far outnumbered the south with votes cast. The far west was simply more plentiful. Without a superhuman performance, simply being a little better, or as good would go unnoticed. Votes do matter. It's not just Bama, the entire SEC has been overlooked. Just because some of the SEC teams have one or two, look at the caliber of players coming through these programs.The south for decades has been an after thought even though nationally Bama, Tenn., LSU, Georgia rank near or in the top 10 in wins. Tenn. still can't get a bite. With the players coming from that system not one in 75 years. Why sit here and talk about who was available that year. Though Peyton Manning comes to mind real quick. It's the process that people have a disdain for. With the new age sports shows it's just harder to ignore the best and still justify it.
We talk about who the competition was because the award is for individuals, not what big name program needs the next Heisman to solidify it's position. Manning only won the South, Woodson won the rest of the regions. So if regional bias is the argument brought forth.... Since new age sports I doubt it is harder to ignore the best. Actually, it is easier. Programs with high national rankings are the ones with Heisman winners. From 1991 most winners came from top 5 programs, the only serious outliers were Ricky Williams of Texas and Tebow of Florida. Both from programs having some national notoriety. Of the last 19 Heisman winners 13 came from teams in the top 5 68% and 89% came from teams in the top 10. The prior 30 years 53% came from top 5 programs, 60% from top 10 teams, and we even had 16% of winners completely outside the top 20. There is still regional bias, but the bigger bias is for who do we see more often on Sportscenter. Much better to be one of the better players on a very good team getting coverage than to be a great player on a team that doesn't get much airtime. I see a trend here, the last 19 winners are clumping: Bama 1 Oklahoma 2 Florida 2 Ohio State 2 USC 3 Nebraska 1 Fl. State 2 Wisconson 1 Texas 1 Michigan 2 Colorado 1 Miami 1
So in essence, we are describing different rules, and almost from person to person different variables. As years have gone by even definitions of what is a Heisman candidate has evolved. Always one constant, It is and will always be a beauty contest. Some years more will agree than others. I don't have a problem with it. To pick one player and call them the best is at the very least arrogant, must less possible. I never lost any sleep over this award one way or the other. The more painful aspects of a beauty contest is when it's associated with the BCS. Win, lose or draw with Bama and Texas this year, we will always need a playoff.
