Category: 
The race for the 2009 Heisman Trophy was a seminal one in the award’s history.
What started out as a battle royale between three star quarterbacks ended up as the tighest race ever between two running backs who were mere afterthoughts heading into the season.
Many of the old rules that govern the Heisman did not apply this year and I attribute that to the new technology that is changing the face of media. This was the first Heisman race where Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc., played a major role. Information was flying fast and furious and it seemed like every miscue or good play was chopped up, spit out and distributed to a new generation of Heisman voters who were plugged in like never before.
For the first time, Heisman voters ignored both class status and statistics in handing out this award. Mark Ingram rushed for fewer yards per game (119) than any Heisman-winning back in the two-platoon (post-1963) era. His total rushing yards were the fewest by any winner since 1975. For the first time, the Heisman-winning running back’s rushing yardage total was eclipsed by the nation’s leading receiver’s yardage total. What’s more, Ingram won the Heisman just 2,270 rushing yards into his career, again, the fewest in the two-platoon era.
How is it that a back with next-to-zero name recognition with voters heading into the season could still win the Heisman despite a season that was unimpressive when compared to past Heisman standards?
A few factors were key. First and most obvious, Ingram played for the nation’s top-ranked team. Alabama, while having never won a Heisman, was a traditional power and respected program. The notion that such a storied tradition had never won a Heisman ended up being a boon to Ingram’s campaign. Second, Ingram put up good numbers in big games against teams that were perceived as being good. He rushed for 150 yards against Virginia Tech, 172 against Mississippi, 144 against LSU and 113 against Florida. These were the games that stood out most to voters. While his overall numbers weren’t great, voters knew he was great because of how he played in these games. As a result, they were willing to forgive his good, though not spectacular, numbers. Again, the abundance and availability of information that flowed enabled voters to see all the nuances in Ingram’s production. Third, voters applied that same nuance to other contenders and found them lacking. Colt McCoy–a slam-dunk winner in most Heisman years–had good overall numbers, but voters didn’t like how he played in big games. They didn’t like that Stanford had four losses, thus hurting Toby Gerhart. And they couldn’t quite wrap their heads around the notion of a defensive tackle, Ndamukong Suh, winning the award. Lastly, after years of quarterback dominance, it appeared that voters were intent on picking a non-quarterback for the Heisman. Quarterbacks received a grand total of 258 first-place votes in this race, while non-QBs received 640.
Based on the history of the Heisman, I thought that McCoy had the best shot of winning. As it turned out, he didn’t finish as far back as some had predicted and if you take away that huge game by Suh, he’s the likely winner. But, clearly, some of the rules have changed and that’s going to lead to more unpredictable races in the future. I think many of the old barriers will now fall–I can now see a freshman or a non-skill player winning a Heisman one day (I’m pretty sure that Adrian Peterson’s freshman season would’ve won it had he played this year). Is a revision to the Heismandments now necessary? Absolutely. Most will remain, but a few are going to need some extra tweaking to reflect the current realities of the Heisman environment.
So this year saw perhaps the most unlikely winner in Heisman history, the product of the closest race in Heisman history. Many saw this as a lackluster Heisman race, but I think it portends well for future seasons. If this year is any guideline, then 2010 should be a doozy.
Comments
This entry was posted on Monday, December 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I liked the old Heisman environment better. Ingram is the least deserving Heisman winner ever. The fact that he’ll probably split carries 50-50 with Richardson next year reinforces this.
Agree with Karl.
Ignored statistics? I know you wanted your boy Gerhart to win, but ain’t that pushing it a bit?
Rushing yardage: Gerhart
Receiving yardage: Ingram
Total yardage: essentially the same
TDs: Gerhart
Yards per carry: Ingram
If you really thought it was about the stats, how come you aren’t mentioning the name of Ryan Matthews, who had both more yards and more yards per carry than either Gerhart OR Ingram?
If it were all about the stats, how could guys like Jerry Rice and Marshall Faulk have failed to win?
How come nobody from a 4-loss team has won in 40 years?
It’s not just a match-the-stats contest, and it never has been. Ingram was fairly selected under the traditional criteria, which reward high-caliber play on the biggest stages. He had more of that than anybody else – at least anybody except one name that never gets mentioned for some reason (see below).
There are plenty of good arguments for changing the traditional criteria. Fine, make those arguments, but don’t pretend that awarding the trophy to Ingram was some criteria revolution. It wasn’t.
If anybody got jobbed, it wasn’t Gerhart, and it wasn’t Suh; it was Kellen Moore, who handily led the nation in passing efficiency quarterbacking an undefeated team. Beats me why he was never a prominent candidate.
I am not advocating anything in this regard, but merely pointing out that Ingram, when compared to previous Heisman-winning running backs, was lacking statistically. This is fact and all analyzed within the context of those who actually have a chance to win. I also pointed out why he won, which is that he played well in big games.
I agree that Ingram’s stats are nothing fancy compared to past Heiman winners. Nobody was an obvious choice this year – unless it was Kellen Moore.
It’s just the “ignore” part from your original post that I pick a bone with. My contention is that you take normal Heisman trophy voting analysis, then analyze Ingram’s stats under that rubric, and the stats get him the trophy – so long as you ignore Moore.
For anybody who hasn’t seen me posting in other threads, let me say upfront that I am Bama born and bred and a huge Tide and Ingram supporter and not trying to hide it. But my Ingram argument is not based on something ephemeral or on something that “I saw” watching the games, it’s based firmly on the combination of stats and team prominence that have always been the bedrock of the award.
Against Moore, I don’t see that I have such a good argument. Against Gerhart, McCoy, Tebow, or Spiller, I think I have the best argument. Suh, of course, only emerges through the application of non-traditional analysis. (Nothing against non-traditional analysis, just that my whole point is that traditional analysis favors Ingram – or Moore. . . .)
I think the MOST important factor in this year’s Heisman race was the fact that 3 of the Heisman contenders were playing in conference championship games. In merely one game, Ingram went from out of the race, to winning it, Colt went from front runner to 3rd, Suh went from nowhere to highest 4th place vote getter ever, and Toby was simply forgotten.
Chock this up as a further advantage for players from the Big 12, SEC, especially traditional powers which will be competing regularly in those games.
If you take away the last week of the season, this year would be a two horse race between Toby and Colt, with Suh’s votes likely split between them (smart, up on the times voters like all the SI writers likely going with Toby, and all the general midwesterners going to Colt).
p.s. HP, I will belatedly take your point and admit that I am unfair of accusing you of advocacy – I’m carrying over a bit from the Gerhart’s schedule thread, where the arguments got a bit more animated.
This is a different thread, based on a different post from you, and that stuff belongs on the other thread.
To me, though, the bigger takeaway from this season is that the voters were perhaps a bit more flexible than usual in giving up their pre-season expectations. That’s a wonderful trend.
I don’t mind so much the bias toward players on top teams, and even the bias toward offensive players, because that matches the award to what the fans see on TV. I think that helps the fans sink their teeth into the HT and is part of what has made it so big.
The bias toward pre-season expectations has no such positive impact. It rewards nothing but sportswriters’ vanity.
Sportswriters make predictions; they want them proved correct. Whenn pundits try to pad their resumes by spinning outcomes to support their pre-existing theses, its a disservice to the fans. It creates cognitive dissonance with what the fans see on the field and on Sportscenter, and what they read about in the game writeups, and it diminishes the game.
HP -
After Ingram was injured against Auburn you listed McCoy #1, Ingram #2 and Gerhart #3. You claimed that Ingram would likely win if he had a great game in an Alabama win and if McCoy played poorly (which is exactly what happened). Yet inexplicably you dropped Ingram from 2nd to 4th place… completely excluding him from your ballot!
HP went on to ask: “What if McCoy plays poorly and Nebraska beats Texas while Alabama beats Florida without any significant help from Ingram? Who wins the Heisman?”
Under this scenario, you thought Gerhart might “eke out” a win while sitting at home. Since Ingram had 182 yards and 3 TDs against Florida, how can you justify dropping Ingram three places below Gerhart?
I’m glad you brought that up, Sandymex, as I think it shows that I was actually on the right track.
I wrote that Ingram would likely win if he had a great game and McCoy had a poor game. That is exactly what happened. After that happened, though, I still picked McCoy as I also thought that it would take a Texas loss for Ingram to overcome things (and I also wasn’t sure Ingram’s game was strong enough). Turns out that the narrow Texas win was as good as a loss and Suh’s candidacy played a huge role in denying McCoy the Heisman–factors that I was unable to foresee. If Suh doesn’t have that game and Texas wins 13-12 and McCoy still has that bad game, I think McCoy gobbles up the bulk of the Southwest region and wins.
As for dropping Ingram to fourth, that is totally different as that is my personal Heisman ballot, which is my own view on who should win. I never had Ingram in my top three of my own ballot at any time.
I see the difference here… thanks for clarifying. But you really never considered Ingram in your “personal” top 3? Not even during the time when he was your Heisman Watch favorite?
Not even when considering the fact that Alabama’s schedule was tougher than Stanford’s or that Ingram led his team to a 13-0 season while Gerhart was 3-4 in close games behind the best offensive line in the country?
I think Ingram is very good back, but not special in my eyes and that’s why I didn’t consider him for the Heisman.
Stanford played a tougher schedule than Alabama, according to Sagarin.
It was not Gerhart’s fault that Stanford went 8-4. He did about as much as humanly possible to help them win.
Part of your basis for choosing Gerhart and excluding Ingram from your ballot was your erroneous claim that Gerhart had not fumbled all year, when he had actually fumbled 5 times as often as Ingram.
Now you claim that Stanford played a tougher schedule than Alabama, when the exact opposite is true. Sagarin ranks Alabama’s schedule 12th and Stanford’s 23rd. Alabama was 3-0 against the top 10 while Stanford was 1-0. Alabama was 7-0 against the top 30 while Stanford was only 2-2.
You say that Gerhart’s weaker performances in losses aren’t relevant (almost 50 yards less per loss). Think how silly it is to excuse 4 losses for Stanford while saying 1 loss by Alabama or Texas would have all but eliminated their candidates from contention.
Five regions agreed with me that Ingram was more deserving than Gerhart. But you’re stuck bad-mouthing Ingram for 39 fewer yards on 43 fewer touches.
Gerhart played against better run defenses than Ingram did.
The rush defenses faced were pretty comparable. On a yards rushing/game basis Stanford faced slightly tougher defenses, on a yards/rush basis Alabama faced slightly tougher defenses.
The biggest advantage that Gerhart had was the strength of his offensive line. HP rightly listed them as his 1st team All-Americans.
[...] Many of the old rules that govern the Heisman did not apply this year and I attribute that to the new technology that is changing the face of media. This was the first Heisman race where Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc., played a major role. Information was flying fast and furious and it seemed like every miscue or good play was chopped up, spit out and distributed to a new generation of Heisman voters who were plugged in like never before. [...]
“clearly, some of the rules have changed and that’s going to lead to more unpredictable races in the future. I think many of the old barriers will now fall–I can now see a freshman or a non-skill player winning a Heisman one day”
This trend is happening all over the world now, as we are questioning the enduring value of many traditional institutions, and the distributed media platforms are allowing voices of meritocracy to be heard. The Heisman looks to be no different as it is slowly emerging from the “white QB award” to something much more valuable.