Did Ingram deserve to win? Heisman vote biased?

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Foxsports.com?

 

Heisman outcome is telling

 

 

All right, Mark. You won the Heisman. Now go and earn it.

 

The way the Heisman vote shook out showed a few things:

 

• The East Coast bias that West Coast types cry and whine about might have actually been an issue.

 

• No one knew what to do with Ndamukong Suh (my No. 1 pick on the ballot)

 

• 203 voters who chose Colt McCoy first had something better to do than watch the Oklahoma or Nebraska games, the two biggest of the year for the Longhorns

 

• 43 voters are in love with Tim Tebow, no matter what actually happened on the field this season

 

• Mark Ingram won the Heisman, but it's not like anyone outside of Alabama is jumping for joy over this.

 

Ingram had a nice season. Not a phenomenal season, not really a Heisman-caliber season, but a nice season. Since Tebow and Florida stunk it up in the SEC Championship, McCoy was awful in the Big 12 Championship and no one east of the Mississippi saw Toby Gerhart outside of the Notre Dame game — Ingram became the default winner. The "Someone-Had-To-Win" winner. But he still has a bowl game to play.

 

Sam Bradford won the 2008 Heisman, but Tim Tebow turned out to be the season's most outstanding player. Reggie Bush won the 2005 Heisman, but Vince Young turned out to be the season's most outstanding player. In 2000, Chris Weinke won the Heisman, but Josh Heupel would've won it after the bowl games.

 

This year, Ingram might have won the Heisman, but if he doesn't rock against Texas, and if Alabama doesn't win the BCS Championship, it's going to be another year when the voters wished they could've changed their minds after the fact.

 

But Ingram can change all of that and he can end the Heisman debate once and for all by coming up with a Heisman-caliber performance against the Longhorns. Considering Texas will be in a bad mood and with everyone focused on stopping the guy who took their quarterback's Heisman, that would be a strong feat (although Bush ripped up the Longhorns in the 2006 Rose Bowl).

 

Ingram really might be the real deal, superstar type of legend who does the Heisman proud. We might all look back and realize that this was the start of something big, not the climax. But one thing is clear, we all need to see more. He's a good guy and someone to root for, but he has to show that he really is an elite player worthy of this honor and not just a very good player on the best team in college football.

 

— Pete Fiutak

 

 

It's not perfect ... So what?

It's become trendy to pick apart the Heisman Trophy and diminish its importance within the college football landscape. Watching the emotion shown by Mark Ingram on Saturday night made much of that chatter appear silly.

 

Like all individual awards, the Heisman has imperfections, but it still matters and likely always will. Deal with it. Ingram let you know that with his reaction to eking out the award in the tightest vote ever. A rock in every other venue of his life, he couldn't contain his joy over joining one of the greatest fraternities in all of sports. That refreshing type of display from a kid who's generally quite reserved and introverted told you everything you need to know about the Heisman's impact on a young man's life, today and for the rest of his life.

 

I took a few things out of this year's race, which had some different cast members, yet was every bit as intriguing as anticipated before the season began. First, it's obvious that class no longer matters. Didn't underclassmen used to face a glass ceiling? Well, a sophomore has now taken home the trophy in each of the last three years, and it's only a matter of time before the first freshman sits for his portrait.

 

Second, Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh could wind up being a pioneer in this discussion. Sure, he's a unique player who doesn't come around every year, but the fact that he finished fourth and gobbled up a bunch of first place votes was telling. As voters continue to evolve, it seems that they might be less fixated on just championing quarterbacks and running backs. If so, add that to Suh's long list of impacts on the game in 2009.

 

— Richard Cirminiello

 

 

The biases are obvious

 

1. The tears from Mark Ingram and his family, plus the power of the realization that the Alabama Crimson Tide finally have their first-ever Heisman Trophy winner, made this year's ceremony a memorable one in New York. The moment was as beautiful as one could ever hope for, the emotions commensurate with this unique and prestigious award. In terms of the human experience, Saturday night's events reminded sports fans — not just college football diehards — why we love and care about the games people play. Sports injected a considerable dose of beauty into the life of Mark Ingram, and the world inhabited by a rightfully proud Alabama football family.

 

2. Since this award confers such pronounced prestige on its recipients, can we make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the Heisman Trophy is awarded fairly? Mark Ingram won in the three regions (Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast) that did not have a Heisman candidate — such a reality doesn't just suggest that the voting system's longstanding problems are as bad as they've ever been; it nakedly indicates as much.

 

Let's be brutally honest: The bias in favor of players on teams playing in the national title game is very much alive and well, sad to say. Colt McCoy beat out Ndamukong Suh for third place, and won 42 more first-place votes. Ingram's superiority in non-Heisman regions says that mass-media influence (i.e., the dynamics of a popularity contest) held sway in this race.

 

The bias in favor of offensive players? Very much intact as well. Many projections during the week had Suh — Nebraska's defensive stud — in second or a close third, with a substantial portion of first-place votes. The final balloting left the Herculean Husker in fourth place.

 

The bias in favor of players who play — and play well — on the last weekend of the season is also flourishing as much as ever. If Ingram's final game had been the Auburn nightmare on Nov. 27, would he be standing in front of a Heisman pulpit as the newest member of an elite fraternity? Be honest.

 

 

The people in charge of the voting system for this award need to do a few things:

 

• Prohibit ballots from being turned in before all games (except for Army-Navy, of course) have been played. The logic of such a policy is obvious.

 

• Require voters to pass a college football literacy test, or some modest but reasonable measure of wide-ranging knowledge about the just-concluded season. Voters — since they're asked to name the top three players — should give three reasons why the winner should be the winner, and why the runners-up didn't quite deserve to hold the hardware.

 

• If the Heisman system won't pare down the number of voters, it must at least weed out voters who, in various ways and for various reasons, reveal that they simply haven't watched an appreciably large and diverse amount of games over the course of the season, from a multiplicity of conferences in a wide range of time slots.

 

Ndamukong Suh was the most outstanding player of the 2009 college football regular season, but a number of longstanding biases and wayward Heisman elements meant that the dynamic defender never had all that much of a chance. You can love what this moment means for Mark Ingram and Joe Namath, Bart Starr, Johnny Musso, Jay Barker, Gene Stallings, Lee Roy Jordan, Tony Nathan, Dwight Stephenson, John Hannah and dozens of other Alabama football legends, while still hating the process that produced another unsatisfying and highly dubious Heisman Trophy result.

 

— Matt Zemek

 

[Husker_x]

Of course it's biased. But maybe bias isn't the right word. Too many people who know too little about football impact the vote. Also, the Heisman trophy has nothing to do with being the best PLAYER in football. If anything, it's an offensive award masquerading as something it's not. Do you mean to tell me in the history of the award the best player, with the exception of one year, has been a skill position player? Even Woodson returned kicks, though.

 

All told, it's still a miracle that Suh was even invited. Him finishing fourth does nothing to diminish his status––in fact if anything it reveals the complete foolishness of how the award winner is presented. In an age where no one trusts the media, giving them any job of consequence is simply asking for a three ring circus-turn popularity contest. The Heisman is more beauty pageant than serious examination of which player impacts the game the most from any position.

 

If that were the real question, everyone worth his salt knows that this year the answer was undeniably Suh.

[strigori]

If you read many of the reasons why many voters voted how they did, they need to have their votes taken away. The LJS had one woman who voted McCoy first because he 'should have won it last year' and because he had a great career. Other morons point at 4 losses and say some line like 'if he was really that good his team wouldn't have lost 4 times. Without even looking into the games. Its a joke and a sham.

[redblooded]

Of course it's biased. But maybe bias isn't the right word. Too many people who know too little about football impact the vote. Also, the Heisman trophy has nothing to do with being the best PLAYER in football. If anything, it's an offensive award masquerading as something it's not. Do you mean to tell me in the history of the award the best player, with the exception of one year, has been a skill position player? Even Woodson returned kicks, though.

 

All told, it's still a miracle that Suh was even invited. Him finishing fourth does nothing to diminish his status––in fact if anything it reveals the complete foolishness of how the award winner is presented. In an age where no one trusts the media, giving them any job of consequence is simply asking for a three ring circus-turn popularity contest. The Heisman is more beauty pageant than serious examination of which player impacts the game the most from any position.

 

If that were the real question, everyone worth his salt knows that this year the answer was undeniably Suh.

 

 

Hell, half the time it doesn't even go to the best offensive skill position player.

[Touchdown Tommie]

Yet another year that I have lost respect for this "trophy". And it is not because I am a Husker fan. It is appalling to me that people can vote and they have no clue what the game of football involves. Better yet, if you play in a market where you can be seen on TV and you are playing in the NCG you are guaranteed to win the award.

[Cornhuskers]

Suh got screwed

[Karawithasmile]

It is sad how this award has progressed through the years, but I don't think any of us are surprised. Look at the number of "distinguished voters" who used their vote as a way to traffic the masses onto their respective websites, twitter accounts, and social networking sites under the slogan "you tell me who to vote for - the most tweets, responses, etc. wins." How could any of us been hoping for informed, mature decisions after that display? The Heisman is fast becoming one of the most over-hyped, least substantial honors and has definitely lost some of its prestige in my mind. It obviously meant a lot to Ingram and good for him. I take nothing away from him, but as for McCoy finishing before Suh, I think that just makes my point. Time will show us who the real winner is, and I for one cannot wait.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

No, Ingram didn't deserve the Heisman, but that's my opinion and it doesn't mean a damn thing. Gerhart is a much better RB and it's obvious in the rankings for his position.

[Enhance]

No, Ingram didn't deserve the Heisman, but that's my opinion and it doesn't mean a damn thing. Gerhart is a much better RB and it's obvious in the rankings for his position.

This.

 

The article hit it right on the head. Nobody in the Midwest or East Coast saw Gerhart play except for the Notre Dame game. Plus, Stanford isn't playing for a national title. I guarantee you that if Gerhart was on Alabama's squad and put up the numbers he did, he would be the Heisman winner without question. The 28 point (or whatever it was) differential proved that. Ingram won because Alabama's current position swayed votes to his favor, and that's it.

 

The Heisman is obviously biased, as others have said. Many refer to it as the "Hypesman" now, because it generally goes to the player that the media gives the most coverage too. The exact definition of the Heisman says absolutely nothing about being undefeated, playing in a National Championship game, or any of that other garbage. It's supposed to go to the most outstanding college football player of that season, regardless of age or position, yet voters still say they use some of those extraneous factors to make their votes. IMHO, these people should get their votes taken away.

 

Unfortunately, we're stuck with the way things are done until something like what this writer suggests actually happens. I, however, see as much chance of that happening as I do people having to re-take their driving test every time they renew their license.

[bhamHusker]

No, Ingram didn't deserve the Heisman, but that's my opinion and it doesn't mean a damn thing. Gerhart is a much better RB and it's obvious in the rankings for his position.

I think Suh should have won, but I never really expected that to happen. Frankly, I viewed the race between Gerhart and Ingram to be a toss-up. While I would have loved to have seen Suh win it, I can't really say that Ingram or Gerhart are bad choices for the voters. I'm not sure you can automatically assume that Gerhart is better than Ingram based solely on the numbers. Ingram faced better competition, and he got less carries (60 fewer, I believe) because he was complimented by other talented members of the UA offense, while Gerhart got a lot of carries against softer defenses because he was one of Stanford's only real weapons. Also, you can't forget that Ingram had 322 yards receiving in addition to his 1542 rushing, mostly coming in the form of YAC on short passes. Gerhart had 149 receiving and 1736 rushing. The gap between the two's combined yardages is only 60 yards in Gerhart's favor. Again, though, this was against much weaker competition. Living in Birmingham and having watched every Alabama game this season, plus being married to a die-hard Alabama fan, although I'm not a Bama fan myself, may be influencing my view of Ingram a bit, but I think I'm being reasonably objective here. I saw Gerhart play 3 times this year, and I think he's really good. I don't think he'd have been a bad choice. I just don't think he was clearly better than Ingram.

 

The fact that McCoy did as well as he did is really surprising and disappointing to me because he was simply unimpressive when he faced good defenses this year. Tebow got votes only because he's a media whore, his numbers didn't merit any serious consideration, imo.

[BeachBuffs]

Suh got screwed

 

How so? Having a Heisman on your resume does nothing to enhance your NFL stock, that guy is going to get loaded up on pay next year and just in time before the new labor regulations go into effect. Suh probably woke up this morning and scratched a number into the wall of his NYC hotel for the number of days left until the NFL draft...........

[hskerholic]

I lost all hope for the heisman when the Adrian Peterson didn't win the heisman because he was an underclassman and now we have had three sophs in a row win it. He was the best player in the NCAA that year and Matt lienhart won it.

[Nexus]

I'm not mad that Ingram won it. You can throw all the stats to prove otherwise and have a valid argument why he shouldn't have won it. I feel like he had 2 crucial things working in his favor:

 

-- Undefeated team playing for NC

-- Bama never having a Heisman winner

 

Therefore there is an element of a sympathy vote to get the Heisman to a Bama star since they've never had one.

[AF Husker Fan]

No, Ingram didn't deserve the Heisman, but that's my opinion and it doesn't mean a damn thing. Gerhart is a much better RB and it's obvious in the rankings for his position.

I think Suh should have won, but I never really expected that to happen. Frankly, I viewed the race between Gerhart and Ingram to be a toss-up. While I would have loved to have seen Suh win it, I can't really say that Ingram or Gerhart are bad choices for the voters. I'm not sure you can automatically assume that Gerhart is better than Ingram based solely on the numbers. Ingram faced better competition, and he got less carries (60 fewer, I believe) because he was complimented by other talented members of the UA offense, while Gerhart got a lot of carries against softer defenses because he was one of Stanford's only real weapons. Also, you can't forget that Ingram had 322 yards receiving in addition to his 1542 rushing, mostly coming in the form of YAC on short passes. Gerhart had 149 receiving and 1736 rushing. The gap between the two's combined yardages is only 60 yards in Gerhart's favor. Again, though, this was against much weaker competition. Living in Birmingham and having watched every Alabama game this season, plus being married to a die-hard Alabama fan, although I'm not a Bama fan myself, may be influencing my view of Ingram a bit, but I think I'm being reasonably objective here. I saw Gerhart play 3 times this year, and I think he's really good. I don't think he'd have been a bad choice. I just don't think he was clearly better than Ingram.

 

The fact that McCoy did as well as he did is really surprising and disappointing to me because he was simply unimpressive when he faced good defenses this year. Tebow got votes only because he's a media whore, his numbers didn't merit any serious consideration, imo.

 

surely you're confused and just saying this because traditionally the SEC has better defenses, but alabama only faced one top 40 defense and stanford played what, 5? 6? gotta rethink your argument there buddy

[Enhance]

Suh got screwed

 

How so? Having a Heisman on your resume does nothing to enhance your NFL stock, that guy is going to get loaded up on pay next year and just in time before the new labor regulations go into effect. Suh probably woke up this morning and scratched a number into the wall of his NYC hotel for the number of days left until the NFL draft...........

You're absolutely right.

 

I look at it this way. Say Tim Tebow won the Heisman this year. Does anybody think that it would really better his draft prospects? People have been saying all along that his NFL quarterback potential isn't that great for many reasons. I've also looked at a couple of different mock drafts and in at least 2 of them I didn't see Tebow ANYWHERE in the first 3 rounds.

 

The Heisman is a nice accomplishment, but in the long run, it's just a trophy. Do you think Suh would have preferred to win his 4 trophies or sign a giant contract in April, bigger than any of the other Senior Heisman finalists are going to get?