Latest Heisman projections from StiffArmTrophy.com

[captain obvious]

The Heisman is beyond irrelevant. Furthermore, it's possibly the only thing about college football that's currently more corrupt than the BCS.

[SealBeachHusker]

The Heisman is beyond irrelevant. Furthermore, it's possibly the only thing about college football that's currently more corrupt than the BCS.

 

I figured that's what you meant, and I happen to agree. But, even though many of us think the BCS is a crock, we'd still be pulling for the good guys if we were in the MNC game. Same here. I know the Heisman is a crock, but if we could get our guy in there...who cares. Have to agree, though, especially listening to some of the Colt McCoy and Tebow supporters on the radio (there's still a few out there) the award is not awarded the way it was intended.

[JTrain]

The BCS is not corrupt. Nor is the Heisman. The BCS is an attempt to put the two best teams in a game together at the end of the season. The Heisman is an attempt to find the most outstanding college football player. They could improve their methods significantly (mainly by finding unbiased, well-researched critical thinkers to vote) but there isn't any evidence that either is corrupt. Just very imperfect in their methods.

[SealBeachHusker]

The BCS is not corrupt. Nor is the Heisman. The BCS is an attempt to put the two best teams in a game together at the end of the season. The Heisman is an attempt to find the most outstanding college football player. They could improve their methods significantly (mainly by finding unbiased, well-researched critical thinkers to vote) but there isn't any evidence that either is corrupt. Just very imperfect in their methods.

 

I don't know, while I agree it's not part of some large conspiracy, the fact that people know both systems are extremely flawed and exclude others from significant participation, would seem to indicate some level of "corruption". With the BCS, it is common knowledge that the system is set up to exclude the non-BCS schools...forcing them to have success to a higher standard than the rest. As for the Heiseman, it too excludes non-BCS schools and heavily favors offensive players. When you KNOW your methods are imperfect to such an extent and simply allow them to be that way, I would consider that at least a minimal level of corruption.

[captain obvious]

The BCS is not corrupt. Nor is the Heisman. The BCS is an attempt to put the two best teams in a game together at the end of the season. The Heisman is an attempt to find the most outstanding college football player. They could improve their methods significantly (mainly by finding unbiased, well-researched critical thinkers to vote) but there isn't any evidence that either is corrupt. Just very imperfect in their methods.

 

Perhaps I should have used the word "sham" instead of "corrupt."

 

The BCS does not achieve its intended goal. It is neither a good pageant nor a fair competition. It fails in both regards.

 

Same deal with the Heisman.

[VA Husker Fan]

What bugs me is how the media makes such a BFD about it, especially getting coaches and players to give their pitch. After the SEC CG, the CBS sideline reporter asked Saban if he thought Ingram should win the Heisman. He just looked for a second and paused and you could tell this was the furthest thing from his mind, and said something like "well, he's one of the best in the country, so yeah, I guess he should be considered for the Heisman." Not the kind of lobbying you'd do if you thought at all about it. And the sideline reporter turned to the camera and kind of winked and said "Sounds like an endorsement to me!"

 

Then on the bowl selection show he was asked again, and said "Look, I only see our players and who we play against. I don't know how he compares to the others."

 

I liked those answers a lot better than Brown touting McCoy for that "great comeback" against us that he was responsible for.

[VA Husker Fan]

removed double post

[JTrain]

For those still holding out hope that Suh could win the Heisman:

 

StiffArmTrophy.com has an average error of 5.6% in the margin between the first and second-place projection over the past four years. Each year during that span, they have projected a wider margin of victory than the actual final standings showed.

 

In 2007, They predicted Tebow to beat McFadden by 19.3%. Tebow won by 9.1%. That's a pretty massive 10.2% prediction error. Currently, Suh is trailing Gerhart by only 3.1%, and Ingram by 4.4%. So Suh still trails the leader by less than the average error.

 

It's also worth noting that six of the seven years (the first year being the exception, and they may have used a different methodology then), the projected third-place player ended up with more votes than they projected. And often a fairly significant amount, in the 3-4% range.

 

For the glass half empty people, another theory is that those who voted for Suh wanted to come out and flaunt it ASAP, since voting for a DT is unique. And so the early numbers are skewed towards Suh, and in the final tally he will have significantly less than the current projection shows.

 

We shall see. If I had to guess, I bet the final order matches the current projection. But I still think it's close enough that the top three all have a shot still.

 

Now, a quick question: Who was the last pure defensive player to finish in the top three of the Heisman voting? By pure defensive player, I mean someone that only gets the ball in their hands from an interception or fumble recovery.

[knapplc]

Stewart Mandel on Suh:

 

Did I see correctly? A defensive player (Ndamukong Suh) was nominated for the Heisman Trophy? I'm stunned. Are the voters realizing that the best player in football is sometimes on defense?

-- Jonathan Fusfield, Washington D.C.

 

It's amazing, isn't it? Just think, over the past three years we've seen one, and now possibly two of the most longstanding and archaic Heisman-voting barriers come down. It only took 71 years, but finally an underclassman won the thing (Tebow), followed by yet another one (Sam Bradford). And now, based on the latest StiffArmTrophy.com projections, a defensive tackle is right in the thick of it.

 

What happened? Did somebody write a book in 2007 that implored voters to rethink their criteria? (And was it Chapter 3?)

 

I first jumped on the Suh/Heisman bandwagon after his stunning Thursday night performance against Missouri and remained fairly loyal the rest of the way. In the weekly top-five ballots I submitted to HeismanPundit.com's Chris Huston, I had Suh No. 1 four times and in my top-five seven of the last nine weeks. But much like Huston predicted to me in an interview for this October column about non-traditional candidates, Suh inevitably faded from my radar due to the simple fact that defensive tackles don't jump off the box score every week like quarterbacks and running backs.

 

Heading into last weekend, I tweeted that my top five were Toby Gerhart, McCoy, Golden Tate, Mark Ingram and Kellen Moore, but that I would remain open to all possibilities. When someone wrote back lamenting Suh's exclusion, I replied: "I love Suh. He has a golden opportunity: Sack McCoy a few times."

 

How's 4 1/2 for you?

 

Suh's performance last Saturday (12 tackles, 10 solo, seven for loss) was so astounding that he probably jumped from getting a handful of token votes to possibly finishing in the top three. It's truly a landmark moment. With all due respect to Gerhart, who led the nation in both rushing yards (1,736) and touchdowns (26), you could still argue that others at his position (Ingram, Dion Lewis, Ryan Williams) were in the same ballpark. You can't say that about Suh. He was unquestionably the most dominant defensive player of not only this season, but the past several seasons. He finished atop my ballot, followed by Gerhart and Ingram. But I'm guessing Ingram, on the strength of his own showcase performance against Florida, will take home the trophy.

 

LINK

[Dan_F_30]

Got a good friend who is a trainer for the Packers. He said Charles Woodson voted Suh #1 on his ballot. FYI

[huKSer]

Stewart Mandel on Suh:

 

 

It's amazing, isn't it? Just think, over the past three years we've seen one, and now possibly two of the most longstanding and archaic Heisman-voting barriers come down. It only took 71 years, but finally an underclassman won the thing (Tebow), followed by yet another one (Sam Bradford). And now, based on the latest StiffArmTrophy.com projections, a defensive tackle is right in the thick of it.

 

Umm, Archie Griffin won it twice (1974, 1975) so unless they give the trophy to a rookie pro player, he won as an underclassman 39 years after the start of the trophy

[JTrain]

Stewart Mandel on Suh:

 

 

It's amazing, isn't it? Just think, over the past three years we've seen one, and now possibly two of the most longstanding and archaic Heisman-voting barriers come down. It only took 71 years, but finally an underclassman won the thing (Tebow), followed by yet another one (Sam Bradford). And now, based on the latest StiffArmTrophy.com projections, a defensive tackle is right in the thick of it.

 

Umm, Archie Griffin won it twice (1974, 1975) so unless they give the trophy to a rookie pro player, he won as an underclassman 39 years after the start of the trophy

 

Griffin won it as a Jr. and Sr.

[Go Balls Deep]

 

Now, a quick question: Who was the last pure defensive player to finish in the top three of the Heisman voting? By pure defensive player, I mean someone that only gets the ball in their hands from an interception or fumble recovery.

 

I would go with Hugh Green in 1980. I think he finished 2nd to George Rogers. Before that our own Rich Glover finished 3rd the year Johnny Rodgers won it.

[knapplc]

Stewart Mandel on Suh:

 

 

It's amazing, isn't it? Just think, over the past three years we've seen one, and now possibly two of the most longstanding and archaic Heisman-voting barriers come down. It only took 71 years, but finally an underclassman won the thing (Tebow), followed by yet another one (Sam Bradford). And now, based on the latest StiffArmTrophy.com projections, a defensive tackle is right in the thick of it.

 

Umm, Archie Griffin won it twice (1974, 1975) so unless they give the trophy to a rookie pro player, he won as an underclassman 39 years after the start of the trophy

"Underclassmen" are Sophomores and Freshmen. "Upperclassmen" are Juniors and Seniors.

[huKSer]

Stewart Mandel on Suh:

 

 

It's amazing, isn't it? Just think, over the past three years we've seen one, and now possibly two of the most longstanding and archaic Heisman-voting barriers come down. It only took 71 years, but finally an underclassman won the thing (Tebow), followed by yet another one (Sam Bradford). And now, based on the latest StiffArmTrophy.com projections, a defensive tackle is right in the thick of it.

 

Umm, Archie Griffin won it twice (1974, 1975) so unless they give the trophy to a rookie pro player, he won as an underclassman 39 years after the start of the trophy

"Underclassmen" are Sophomores and Freshmen. "Upperclassmen" are Juniors and Seniors.

oops