Heismandment No. 9 Strikes, Mark Ingram Out With Injury

Just as it did for Sam Bradford last year, and just as it has for every other returning Heisman winner–save one–for the past 76 years, Heismandment No. 9 has once again exacted its tribute.

Alabama will be without Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram for Saturday’s opener against San Jose State, and probably longer, after he underwent arthroscopic surgery on his knee Tuesday morning.

His return for the Penn State game looks to be unlikely.

This just illustrates how difficult it is to have consecutive healthy, productive and Heisman-worthy seasons, especially when you are a work-horse back like Ingram.

I don’t doubt that he will come back to put up some good production this year–Ingram’s a warrior with a big heart, after all.  But we can pretty much count him out for the Heisman in 2010 which, of course, is what I have written all along (to the consternation of so many of you).

In the meantime, here’s hoping his recovery goes well and he’s back out on the field soon.

Powered by

About Heismanpundit

Chris Huston, A.K.A. ‘The Heisman Pundit‘, is a Heisman voter and the creator and publisher of Heismanpundit.com, a site dedicated to analysis of the Heisman Trophy and college football. Dubbed “the foremost authority on the Heisman” by Sports Illustrated, HP is regularly quoted or cited during football season in newspapers across the country. He is also a regular contributor on sports talk radio and television.

Follow HP

Find us on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube!

, , ,

15 Responses to Heismandment No. 9 Strikes, Mark Ingram Out With Injury

  1. Glen August 31, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    As I’ve said before, I have a serious bone to pick with this so-called “Heismanmandment.” There have only been a handful of guys eligible for a repeat Heisman in recent decades, and I think the record shows that they’ve done just fine in the voting. There are thousands of players, and dozens of them are stars. Every Heisman winner who did not repeat failed to repeat based on his stats and his team’s record, not on this mythological “rule.”

    Now – although I personally doubt it – I may be wrong about that. But I’m not wrong about this: the fact that Mark Ingram got injured has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with “Heismanmandment No. 9.” He’s a football player: he got hurt. It happens, whether you won the Heisman last year or not.

    • Heismanpundit August 31, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

      Heismandment No. 9 states very clearly why there will never be another two time winner. One of those points is that staying healthy in consecutive seasons is a challenge.

      I think you are taking this far too literally and seriously. My point was that Ingram was not going to repeat and I spelled out exactly what those possible reasons were. I was right.

  2. slippy August 31, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    Glen, just because they ‘did fine in the voting’ doesn’t mean they actually had a chance to win. I would say Suh last year did fine in the voting but he was never going to win.

  3. Roby August 31, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    Jesus. If Heismandment #9 had no validity, then we would have a bunch of repeat winners by now. A lot of things that have to go right to win the Heisman once. All the same things have to go right AGAIN to win twice. The only thing a repeat contender doesn’t have to do in year two is make himself known to the voters, as he is already a known commodity.

  4. Glen August 31, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    Somebody give me a single example of a return Heisman winner who should have repeated based on his stats. The best argument for that is Tebow his junior year. Tebow came within a hair of winning it, even though his stats were markedly behind Bradford’s.

    I can’t think of a single example of a returning Heisman winner who got shafted in the balloting. I believe it’s true that every returning winner started as a serious contender and then got out-played by the eventual winner.

    HP, if you will step back from your injury argument and look at it, I think you’ll see where it misses the mark. You’re saying it’s hard to avoid injury two seasons in a row – but explain to me how that applies to a returning Heisman winner who has already got one of those seasons under his belt. A returning Heisman winner is not significantly likelier, if at all, to be injured than is any other star offensive player.

    The fact that Heisman winners rarely repeat has NOTHING to do with the fact they’re Heisman winners. It’s merely because the odds are high that ANYBODY you pick pre-season will PROBABLY NOT win the Heisman. ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL YOU PICK is much more likely than not to get injured or have a couple of bad games in high visibility or have his team lose a lot or just not get it done. The Heisman winner is no more “cursed” than any other individual who is anointed as an early favorite and pretty much inevitably fails to win.

    That you never know what’s going to happen in a college football season is a simple, obvious truth. This “Heismanmandment” is a result of overthinking IMO. I see no validity to it at all.

  5. Anonymous August 31, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    Thank you Glen for a common sense post. Maybe some of this will rub off and HP will stop celebrating injuries as proof of an irrefutable law.

    I’m not a Alabama fan, but I’m sorry Ingram was injured and I wish him a speedy recovery. He’ll earn even more respect if he’s able to come back from this.

  6. AUman76 August 31, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    look at the bright side Glen, now Richardson will prove how much better he is than Ingram. Ingram ain’t nuthin special but Trent is and y’all are about to find that out. Being an AUman I know a lil sumthin bout dem dar runnin backs. lol Glen, all BS aside,other than hurtin your depth at RB the tide won’t miss a beat. TR scares the hell out of everyone one in the SEC so enjoy the show this kid is about to give y’all.

  7. Glen August 31, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    Richardson is a better athlete than Ingram, but as of the end of last season Ingram was definitely a better runner. Better change of direction, better vision, he made things happen.

    But if Richardson takes to a year of Burton Burns’ coaching the way Ingram and Glen Coffee did, he could be pretty scary.

    As for this weekend’s game: I hear TR is a little banged up, too. Look for Eddie Lacy to get a bunch of carries.

    And AUMan, I do have to give y’all credit for knowing something about running backs. Even Doug Barfield turned out a stable of studs.

  8. Not Anon September 1, 2010 at 1:01 am #

    Glen you’re refuting your own argument

  9. philnotfil September 1, 2010 at 10:52 am #

    I don’t understand this argument against #9. The Heismandments aren’t commandments that things have to be this way. They are observations on what has happened and reflections on why things have happened that way.

    #9 is an observation that only one person has repeated and highlights some of the reasons why no one else has repeated.

    The people against #9 are phrasing their arguments as if Ingram was injured because of #9.

  10. Glen September 1, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    The people against #9 are phrasing their arguments as if Ingram was injured because of #9.

    Look at the title of HP’s post.

    To fill you in on a little bit of history, HP didn’t put Ingram on his list of 15 or so Heisman candidates, quoting “Heismanmandment #9.” As a football fan, I thought that was absurd, and as an Alabama fan I was incensed.

    To me, claiming that “Heismanmandment #9” “struck” because Ingram got dinged up is like trying to prop up a condemned house by leaning a chair against the wall. Oh well, maybe that analogy doesn’t go too far, but Ingram got injured because he got hit or fell wrong or whatever happened, and not because of “Heismanmandment #9.”

    • Heismanpundit September 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

      Ever heard of the SI cover jinx? When they say it has ‘struck again’, they are not literally saying anything physical has happened. Metaphysical, maybe. You need to lighten up a bit. THe point of #9 is that crap happens in college football to lots of players and to win the Heisman you have to be a bit charmed. To win it twice, charmed twice. Good luck with that!

  11. AUman76 September 1, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    yep Glen, that’s how I saw it too. Kinda like a jinx on the previous under classman winner? No dark cloud over anyone…just a football injury that anyone on the field could get. I hear tell Lacy is a bit raw but has shown all around improvement in his skills since last season? Been a while since y’all filled the air with footballs but with the wide outs in t-town that seems to be a real option. If another back goes down for any length of time I could see that happening. What’s your take on that one?

  12. Anonymous September 2, 2010 at 7:33 am #

    HP –

    We’re not randomly picking players and speculating about their chances of winning two Heismans. We’re looking at returning Heisman winners and asking if they can possibly win it again. You say it’s impossible and refuse to even consider players like Ingram as contenders.

    But the fact of the matter is that you’ve had this site for 6 years and have flip-flopped twice on Heismandment #9. First you flip-flopped after Tebow got the most first place votes and carried his team to a national championship. Then reversed yourself again because Tebow failed to do it.


    As long as you keep taking both positions you can always brag that at one point you had it figured out.

    Here’s an example from 2007:
    “I can say with extreme confidence that the Heisman winner will come from the following group of players. THESE ARE THE ONLY GUYS WHO CAN WIN!”
    …Tebow wasn’t on your list.

    From 2008:
    “I can say with extreme confidence that the Heisman winner will come from the following group of players.”
    …Bradford wasn’t in your group.

    From 2009:
    “some players NOT on this list are still going to receive votes and finish somewhere in the top 10, but will in reality have no chance of actually taking home the trophy.”
    …Ingram wasn’t on your list and took home the trophy.

    You’ve had 30 preseason picks of the Heisman winner in the last 3 years and none of them have been right. I can see why you’re starting to tone down your guarantees.

    • Heismanpundit September 2, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

      Bottom line: I said Ingram wouldn’t repeat and why. He didn’t. I was right. Quit whining.