Now here's a guy who can steal a good idea... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/cory_mccartney/12/06/heisman.hindsight/index.html See, the whole point of my bringing up the Heisman winners yesterday was to give my opinions on who should have won the award today, as well as to point out the fact that I bought a Rashan Salaam Bears jersey in fifth grade. Well, it looks like this fancy-pants McCartney fellow beat me to the punch. Anyway, read the list, it looks basically like the one I woulda thought of, and feel free to chime in with any other thoughts/opinions.
Twigga
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I really don't have too much of a beef with the list from the article. The one thing I like about McCartney's approach is that he doesn't get all revisionist about things and pick another winner based solely upon a winner's NFL career. I do have a couple of comments though...
'90: Detmer- This is the first Heisman presentation that I actually remember watching. In fact, I remember that Detmer was not actually in NY for the presentation, he was via satellite. That's because the announcement was made on December 1 and they had a game that day. In fact, looking at their past schedule it says they played at Hawaii that day, so I don't know how that all worked out.
'92: Torretta- I really agree that this is a turning point for the trophy. A formula took hold that you needed to be an upperclassman with a good season on a contending team to win generally. Faulk would have been a much better pick. Actually, 3rd place Garrison Hearst would have been a better pick too.
'94: Salaam- I'm really disappointed to hear that you had a Salaam Bears jersey Lance. Ki-Jana would have been a better pick and that Penn State team got screwed out of at least a split title by the media's desire to give Tom Osborne his first title. In fact, perusing Penn State's future schedule I'm enthused to see a home and home with Nebraska coming up in 2014 and 2015. Maybe both will be relevant again by then. Also, Steve McNair at least deserves a mention here. He was awesome. Can you imagine a DI-AA player getting that kind of attention now?
'97: Woodson- I totally agree with McCartney that Manning deserved this. Woodson got this with the performance against OSU and that's it.
'99: Dayne- I can't believe that Joe Hamilton finished 2nd this year. If the vote had been after the Sugar Bowl, Mike Vick would have at least gotten 2nd and maybe won it.
'00: Weinke- He probably deserved it, but Ladainian Tomlinson also had a really good year.
I agree with all of McCartney's other picks.
That'll do it. Long comment, sorry but I've got some hot sports opinions on this.
Since Austin wrote a novel, albeit an insightful one, here's my thoughts in a more concise form:
If anything, it's easy to look back at a Heisma vote after the all-important bowl games and to second guess the winner if he flopped on a particularly big stage.
With that said, the only Heisman vote that I have been shocked with of those listed is the 1997 win by Chaz Woodson. Even though the Heisman is supposed to go the "Outstanding Player in College Football", I think that UM's national title campaign combined with the Vols' failure to beat the hated Gators (which was pinned on Manning deservedly or not) led to the outcome we had.
Just my $.02
Let me ask you this Justin...would you be in favor of moving the voting for the Heisman to after the bowls. I know it may not be traditional since it has always been a "regular season" award even though it doesn't say that in the award's description.
However, for most of these teams the bowl game is the toughest of the year or second toughest of the year. Wouldn't it be more fair to award it based upon how you perform against quality teams which most of these bowls will provide.
Case in point, Troy Smith from last year. If the voting was after the bowls he almost certainly would have lost out to McFadden and you could argue rightfully so since he failed dramatically against a really good team. Furthermore, this year that would give someone like Brennan a chance if he were to somehow dominate Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
I don't know, just an idea...what do you think?
Austin,
I think's that actually a really good idea to move the voting after the bowl games. I've always thought that they should move the voting process for individual awards such as the Heisman, MVP, Cy Young, and Rookie of the Year after the season has been completed.
A great reason to do that showed up this year in baseball where C.C. Sabbathia won the AL Cy Young over Josh Beckett and Beckett looked like the second coming of Bob Gibson (possibly blasphemy on my part) and Sabbathia looked like the second coming of the Hamburgler. Sure, Sabbathia had better some better regular stats than Beckett, but no one doubts that Beckett is the better pitcher when all the chips are down.
The first downside that comes to mind is that players stuck on really bad teams that don't make the playoffs will be severely disadvantaged if voting takes place after such a highly televised period. In most cases, there is an unspoken rule that a Heisman winner's team needs to have a maximum of 3-4 losses (this year's Gators currently have 3)to be in serious contention for the award.
I personally don't have a problem with giving a little more weight to what a player does in a bowl against stronger competition and more intense media scrutiny.
I also agree that the Heisman should be awarded after the bowls, and not just because Vince woulda won in 05. Is the Heisman actually a 'regular season' award? Maybe it is, but everything I've heard is that it is awarded to "College football's most outstanding player," not "college football's most outstanding regular season player." That said, if a player has a big game in a bowl against seemingly better competition, he should get rewarded for it.
Besides the Beckett/Sabathia debate over the Cy Young award, you can look at the NBA with Dirk winning the MVP last year after a terrific regular season, but many-myself included-don't think he was deserving after his first-round flameout against Golden State. All this to say, if it were up to me all Heisman/MVP awards get rewarded after the season, and if the player plays and performs well in the playoffs, more power to him.
See, I'd have to disagree on the MVP awards for MLB/NBA/etc. Those awards are explicitly for the regular season.
Furthermore, there is a separate award for playoff MVPs. For the NBA it's only the "Finals MVP" but it usually takes into account the entire playoffs. For baseball they have LCS and World Series MVPs. Also, in those sports the season is long enough that you get a true sense of performance over that time. For college football the season is so short that I think you actually need an extra game to judge performance.
Finally, I think that for MLB/NBA MVPs making the playoffs or advancing your team in the playoffs shouldn't be a factor. Doing the voting after the World Series/Finals would unfairly prejudice the voting towards picking a player on a team that wins, or at least makes the final round. For the Heisman the bowls are just one more game for everyone and if your team doesn't make a bowl you don't really have a chance anyway.
Dang. Double-triple-quadruple F. Well played Austin. I completely disregarded the LCS, WS, and Finals MVP's. I guess this is what I get for spending 40 hours a week with 12 & 13 years olds. As ESPNS's Bill Simmons would say, 'I'm an idiot. Don't ever forget this'...I maintain my stance on the Heisman, however.
Quit you job immediately and start law school. You have plenty of time to think about this stuff when you should be studying for exams.
Post a Comment