ESPN at it again

Go Balls Deep · December 8, 2009

I have insider on ESPN and for the life of me I don't know why. They have their updated Heisman predictor and their stat nerd doesn't even have Suh in the top 5. In fact he has him 10th behind Shipley, Tate, Keenum. Here is this Mensa's reasoning behind Suh being ranked low:

"Before we count down the Heisman Predictor's top five, I'd like to address Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh's candidacy.

Suh will finish in the top 10 of the voting, possibly even top five, but he rates poorly in the Heisman Predictor standings. The Predictor's primary purpose is to determine the winner; the ranking of the other candidates is a secondary goal. Because of this, offensive players are given a sizable advantage over defensive players in the formula. This is to ensure the highest likelihood that the winner is predicted correctly. And as we know, it is a near certainty that the winner will be a quarterback, running back or receiver.

This does not mean that defensive players are ignored. In past years, the Predictor has accurately ranked defensive players. For example, Ohio State linebacker A.J. Hawk finished eighth in the standings in 2005, just ahead of Memphis running back DeAngelo Williams.

The increasing sentiment that Suh is a viable candidate is a product of the failures of those around him. Had the top quarterbacks reproduced their 2008 numbers, his name would not even be brought up in this conversation. The Heisman Predictor doesn't have him in the top 10, but as a result of this season's circumstances, his actual finish likely will be higher than 10th."

At the end of the column it states that he has predicted the last 6 Heisman winners and this year it is picking none other than Mr. Clock Management Colt McCoy.

knapplc · December 8, 2009

To an extent he has a point - Suh wouldn't be considered highly if the "sexy" traditional players/positions were having brilliant years. That's more of a failure of the voters than it is of Suh. Like I've said before, people do not grasp almost half the game. They have no idea the positional requirements of most defenders. They like the low-hanging fruit of offense, since it's easy to grasp.

Offense's purpose is to score points. Young children get that more points = better, and sadly, most "experts" don't progress beyond that mentality. They look at yardage totals and touchdowns as if they are the end-all, be-all of football. The perception is that defense is a necessary evil of the game, a backdrop against which they cast the light of their offensive heroes. There is a bias against defense in this mentality, because defenders endeavor to stop those easy-to-comprehend numbers.

The failure isn't in this guy's predictor. As far as I can tell, he's just calling it like it is.

The failure is in the minds of the voters and the self-perpetuating belief that offense > defense. The more offensive players who win this award, the more likely it is that they always will, until a player comes along who is brilliant enough, dominant enough and transcendent enough that, despite their bias, they cannot help but notice him.

That's what Suh has done, and that in itself is a mighty accomplishment.