Latest Heisman projections from StiffArmTrophy.com

Dan_F_30 said:
Found this from voter Len Berman, I clicked on his name in the counted votes section of stiffarmtrophy.com and this is the source for his vote. Which he voted Ingram #1. I believe this is a classic example of what is wrong with this award.

"4. Full Disclosure

My vote was due today. I'm one of those anonymous people who vote for the Heisman Trophy. It's been that way for years. It doesn't matter that I rarely see a college football game in person, they send me a ballot anyway. It also doesn't matter that other than Ernie Davis winning in 1961, I haven't been a huge fan of the award. (Ernie was the Syracuse running back who became the first black Heisman winner.) The Heisman goes to the "best player in college football." And that invariably means a running back or quarterback. I'm waiting for a grunt to win it..... some big slow offensive lineman. Anyway, on the theory of "what have you done for me lately" I voted for Alabama running back Mark Ingram. Obviously I'm all talk. "
Click to expand...
Please tell me that's a joke? I'd love to get my paws on that man... :box

 
The Heisman Trophy is right up there with the Miss America Pageant. To all those voters who have been on TV this week saying SUH is the most deserving but doesn't have a chance to win so they are going to vote for someone else I quite simply say, "You hypocritacal bastards."

T_O_B

:steam :steam :steam :steam :steam

 
Seems like StiffArmyTrophy might be trying to hedge their bet a little bit on this year's Heisman.

http://www.stiffarmtrophy.com/2009/12/digg...n-of-error.html

We also analyzed the GAP between the winner and the runner-up. It appears that every year except 2004, we overestimated the gap. In other words, our numbers had a larger win than the actual totals. (That's not too surprising - after all, voters who vote for the favorites are more likely to disclose their vote than ones who vote for long-shots and underdogs.) In 2008, we projected a 5.7% win for Bradford, and it was 4.4%. In 2007, however, we projected a 19.4% win for Tebow, and it was only 9.2%.In general, over the last seven years, we've overestimated the gap between first and second by 4.23%. In the last five years, 2.58%. This has huge implications in a year where we're looking at a projected win of somewhere between 2-4%.
Click to expand...
 
SealBeachHusker said:
Seems like StiffArmyTrophy might be trying to hedge their bet a little bit on this year's Heisman.

http://www.stiffarmtrophy.com/2009/12/digg...n-of-error.html

We also analyzed the GAP between the winner and the runner-up. It appears that every year except 2004, we overestimated the gap. In other words, our numbers had a larger win than the actual totals. (That's not too surprising - after all, voters who vote for the favorites are more likely to disclose their vote than ones who vote for long-shots and underdogs.) In 2008, we projected a 5.7% win for Bradford, and it was 4.4%. In 2007, however, we projected a 19.4% win for Tebow, and it was only 9.2%.In general, over the last seven years, we've overestimated the gap between first and second by 4.23%. In the last five years, 2.58%. This has huge implications in a year where we're looking at a projected win of somewhere between 2-4%.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
As a math geek, what this says to me is that they have no clue who is going to win on Saturday and their projection has little (if any) meaning.

 
Yeah, they have quoted various margins of error...usually between 3% and 5%...and this looks to be a tighter race then has occurred before. Statistically it would seem to be a pretty open 3-man race.

ironmike said:
SealBeachHusker said:
Seems like StiffArmyTrophy might be trying to hedge their bet a little bit on this year's Heisman.

http://www.stiffarmtrophy.com/2009/12/digg...n-of-error.html

We also analyzed the GAP between the winner and the runner-up. It appears that every year except 2004, we overestimated the gap. In other words, our numbers had a larger win than the actual totals. (That's not too surprising - after all, voters who vote for the favorites are more likely to disclose their vote than ones who vote for long-shots and underdogs.) In 2008, we projected a 5.7% win for Bradford, and it was 4.4%. In 2007, however, we projected a 19.4% win for Tebow, and it was only 9.2%.In general, over the last seven years, we've overestimated the gap between first and second by 4.23%. In the last five years, 2.58%. This has huge implications in a year where we're looking at a projected win of somewhere between 2-4%.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
As a math geek, what this says to me is that they have no clue who is going to win on Saturday and their projection has little (if any) meaning.
Click to expand...
 
SealBeachHusker said:
Yeah, they have quoted various margins of error...usually between 3% and 5%...and this looks to be a tighter race then has occurred before. Statistically it would seem to be a pretty open 3-man race.

ironmike said:
SealBeachHusker said:
Seems like StiffArmyTrophy might be trying to hedge their bet a little bit on this year's Heisman.

http://www.stiffarmtrophy.com/2009/12/digg...n-of-error.html

We also analyzed the GAP between the winner and the runner-up. It appears that every year except 2004, we overestimated the gap. In other words, our numbers had a larger win than the actual totals. (That's not too surprising - after all, voters who vote for the favorites are more likely to disclose their vote than ones who vote for long-shots and underdogs.) In 2008, we projected a 5.7% win for Bradford, and it was 4.4%. In 2007, however, we projected a 19.4% win for Tebow, and it was only 9.2%.In general, over the last seven years, we've overestimated the gap between first and second by 4.23%. In the last five years, 2.58%. This has huge implications in a year where we're looking at a projected win of somewhere between 2-4%.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
As a math geek, what this says to me is that they have no clue who is going to win on Saturday and their projection has little (if any) meaning.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So they are just covering their A$$ for when the get it wrong.

 
I over heard something on ESPN radio this morning, never got the name, but that this is going to be the closest race in history. Suh moving to second is promising.

I will be watching, just like I do every year, but way more excited about it than any time before.

He is the Heisman.

 
Damn, looks like this might turn out to be another heartbreaker for the 2009 season, because of:

a) the aforementioned voters who voted Suh #3 because they didn't think he had a real chance to win

B) the approx. 6% of the voters (that's around 55 voters) who voted before the championship games.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As posted on the ESPN Big 12 blog by a Texas fan under the bcarter username. Just put a copy of McCoy's helmet on the trophy where the ball would be and give Suh the Heisman, the man deserves it because he's a beast.

I laughed for a few minutes as I pictured the headlock when McCoy tried to sneak by Suh.

 
HuskerInLostWages said:
As posted on the ESPN Big 12 blog by a Texas fan under the bcarter username. Just put a copy of McCoy's helmet on the trophy where the ball would be and give Suh the Heisman, the man deserves it because he's a beast.

I laughed for a few minutes as I pictured the headlock when McCoy tried to sneak by Suh.
Click to expand...
They have now him number 2 about 3% behind Ingram!

 
Suh has the big thing MO

I sure hope Tom O is there it adds so much to our image factor to have him present! Especially if Suh wins!

It will be huge!!!!!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top