Comments on: Wrapping it all up

By: Vince Mullins

Vince Mullins — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:33:06 +0000

“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.

By: Ingram wins Heisman in closest vote ever | Fantasy College Blitz

Ingram wins Heisman in closest vote ever | Fantasy College Blitz — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:03:16 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: sandymex

sandymex — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:10:43 +0000

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.

By: philnotfil

philnotfil — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:13:34 +0000

Gerhart played against better run defenses than Ingram did.

By: sandymex

sandymex — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:02:29 +0000

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.

By: Heismanpundit

Heismanpundit — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:17:25 +0000

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.

By: sandymex

sandymex — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:50:38 +0000

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?

By: HP

HP — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:48:31 +0000

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.

By: sandymex

sandymex — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:04:17 +0000

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?

By: Glen Turner

Glen Turner — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:25:48 +0000

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.