College Football - Championship Week and Beyond

[TruffleShuffle]

shocked the NZAA let a bama player win.

[RedFlash]

shocked the NZAA let a bama player win.

 

Shocked that you would use a nickname that Bama fans have use since the 1966 season.

 

Nobody got robbed, the Heisman isn't fixed, the NZAA didn't get bought off, or whatever conspiracy theories that are concieved. One of the 5 best players in college football won the award, fair and square.

[TheVolCub08]

Gerhart was ROBBED.

 

No not really, but that's ok.

 

Really? So, Ingram- who faced ONE Top 40 rush Defense (UF) gained fewer yards in more games, and had 11 fewer rush TD's, didn't rob Gerhart- who faced FIVE Top 40 Rush Defenses?

 

So, Gerhart had 200 more yards in fewer games, 11 more TD's in fewer games, and did it against better competition (with MUCH less help around him), but wasn't robbed? In those 5 games against Top 40 Rush D's, Gerhart had 11 TD's... 4 fewer than Ingram got in a full season plus a championship game.

 

Yes, he got robbed, and your homerism sure looks stupid now.

[Derwood]

Gerhart was ROBBED.

 

No not really, but that's ok.

 

Really? So, Ingram- who faced ONE Top 40 rush Defense (UF) gained fewer yards in more games, and had 11 fewer rush TD's, didn't rob Gerhart- who faced FIVE Top 40 Rush Defenses?

 

So, Gerhart had 200 more yards in fewer games, 11 more TD's in fewer games, and did it against better competition (with MUCH less help around him), but wasn't robbed? In those 5 games against Top 40 Rush D's, Gerhart had 11 TD's... 4 fewer than Ingram got in a full season plus a championship game.

 

Yes, he got robbed, and your homerism sure looks stupid now.

 

Gerhart barely lost. It was the difference of one or two voters. It wasn't like Gerhart finished in 5th

[TheVolCub08]

Gerhart was ROBBED.

 

No not really, but that's ok.

 

Really? So, Ingram- who faced ONE Top 40 rush Defense (UF) gained fewer yards in more games, and had 11 fewer rush TD's, didn't rob Gerhart- who faced FIVE Top 40 Rush Defenses?

 

So, Gerhart had 200 more yards in fewer games, 11 more TD's in fewer games, and did it against better competition (with MUCH less help around him), but wasn't robbed? In those 5 games against Top 40 Rush D's, Gerhart had 11 TD's... 4 fewer than Ingram got in a full season plus a championship game.

 

Yes, he got robbed, and your homerism sure looks stupid now.

 

Gerhart barely lost. It was the difference of one or two voters. It wasn't like Gerhart finished in 5th

 

Doesn't matter if he finished 2nd or 5th... he deserved to win it, and 2nd or 5th, he still lost it. I'm not angry that people would have voted for Ingram , necessarily. It's the votes for Tebow (23 of 'em) that are indefensible.

[shnsajax]

Gerhart was ROBBED.

 

No not really, but that's ok.

 

Really? So, Ingram- who faced ONE Top 40 rush Defense (UF) gained fewer yards in more games, and had 11 fewer rush TD's, didn't rob Gerhart- who faced FIVE Top 40 Rush Defenses?

 

So, Gerhart had 200 more yards in fewer games, 11 more TD's in fewer games, and did it against better competition (with MUCH less help around him), but wasn't robbed? In those 5 games against Top 40 Rush D's, Gerhart had 11 TD's... 4 fewer than Ingram got in a full season plus a championship game.

 

Yes, he got robbed, and your homerism sure looks stupid now.

 

But if McCoy won it the award would be a joke like the gold glove because Keenam had better stats.

[RedFlash]

Gerhart was ROBBED.

 

No not really, but that's ok.

 

Really? So, Ingram- who faced ONE Top 40 rush Defense (UF) gained fewer yards in more games, and had 11 fewer rush TD's, didn't rob Gerhart- who faced FIVE Top 40 Rush Defenses?

 

So, Gerhart had 200 more yards in fewer games, 11 more TD's in fewer games, and did it against better competition (with MUCH less help around him), but wasn't robbed? In those 5 games against Top 40 Rush D's, Gerhart had 11 TD's... 4 fewer than Ingram got in a full season plus a championship game.

 

Yes, he got robbed, and your homerism sure looks stupid now.

 

And you're hatred of Alabama is blinding your judgement. Toby didn't get robbed, deal with it. Just because you don't like the fact that an Alabama player won it doesn't mean Ingram didn't have the right to the trophy. For god sake, Ingram took 4 of the 6 regions. It's not as if Ingram took less regions then Toby and had to replay on m ore 2nd and third place votes. Mark took 4 of the 6 regions, had more first place and 2nd place votes. Again Toby DID NOT get robbed. Grab a beer and move TVC, cause your dislike of Bama is clearly affecting your judgement.

[NewUserName]

I think most fans of college FB realize that stats usually have little to do with who wins the Heisman. It is clearly a function of media driven hype...so let it go.

[Derwood]

Heisman winners have a pretty bad NFL track record over the past 20 or so years as well. There are exceptions, but the Heisman seems to be an NFL curse

 

ETA:

 

Winners since 1990:

 

1990: Ty Detmer (career backup)

1991: Desmond Howard (don't even remember who he played for)

1992: Gino Toretta (lol)

1993: Charlie Ward (undrafted, played in NBA)

1994: Rashan Salaam (ouch)

1995: Eddie George (really good)

1996: Danny Wuerffel (career backup)

1997: Charles Woodson (good)

1998: Ricky Williams (4:20)

1999: Ron Dayne (eh)

2000: Chris Weinke (bad)

2001: Eric Crouch (bad)

2002: Carson Palmer (good)

2003: Jason White (who?)

2004: Matt Leinart (bad start, stuck on bench)

2005: Reggie Bush (good when healthy)

2006: Troy Smith (backup)

2007: Tim Tebow (TBD)

2008: Sam Bradford (TBD)

2009: Mark Ingram (TBD)

[Andy]

I think the Heisman 'curse' has more to do with the Heisman continually going to players that everyone knows aren't going to be worth a [expletive] in the NFL than anything. It's not like Smith, White, Weinke, Crouch, etc. were drafted high and had bad things happen to them, they just plain aren't NFL players.

 

FWIW, I don't think the same thing will happen to Mark Ingram, who looks like he could be a solid NFL back.

[Guest]

Gerhart was ROBBED.

 

No not really, but that's ok.

 

Really? So, Ingram- who faced ONE Top 40 rush Defense (UF) gained fewer yards in more games, and had 11 fewer rush TD's, didn't rob Gerhart- who faced FIVE Top 40 Rush Defenses?

 

So, Gerhart had 200 more yards in fewer games, 11 more TD's in fewer games, and did it against better competition (with MUCH less help around him), but wasn't robbed? In those 5 games against Top 40 Rush D's, Gerhart had 11 TD's... 4 fewer than Ingram got in a full season plus a championship game.

 

Yes, he got robbed, and your homerism sure looks stupid now.

 

If you're going to point out how Gerhart was better, you also need to be aware of how he's worse. Gerhart needed 62 more carries to get his yards and Ingram gained more yards each time (6.2 vs. 5.6). Ingram also had 30 catches for 322 yards and three TDs while Gerhart went 10-149-0.

 

I'm not arguing either way, just that this isn't as clear cut as you seem to be making it.

[TheVolCub08]

Gerhart was ROBBED.

 

No not really, but that's ok.

 

Really? So, Ingram- who faced ONE Top 40 rush Defense (UF) gained fewer yards in more games, and had 11 fewer rush TD's, didn't rob Gerhart- who faced FIVE Top 40 Rush Defenses?

 

So, Gerhart had 200 more yards in fewer games, 11 more TD's in fewer games, and did it against better competition (with MUCH less help around him), but wasn't robbed? In those 5 games against Top 40 Rush D's, Gerhart had 11 TD's... 4 fewer than Ingram got in a full season plus a championship game.

 

Yes, he got robbed, and your homerism sure looks stupid now.

 

If you're going to point out how Gerhart was better, you also need to be aware of how he's worse. Gerhart needed 62 more carries to get his yards and Ingram gained more yards each time (6.2 vs. 5.6). Ingram also had 30 catches for 322 yards and three TDs while Gerhart went 10-149-0.

 

I'm not arguing either way, just that this isn't as clear cut as you seem to be making it.

 

Oh, I agree with that. Ingram was a better receiver. And, to be honest, while statistically, the Pac-10 rush defenses were better, we know why that is- the Pac 10 sucks at running the fotball, whereas the SEC runs better than it throws generally.

 

But, while Gerhart "needed" more carries, you have to consider some intangibles here. First, Gerhart did not have a backup to split carries with. Stanford's #2 rusher was Luck, and he averaged under 25 ypg. Ingram had Richardson who stole carries, sure, but also kept Ingram fresher, and helped wear down defenses. And while the QB's were basically a wash, Gerhart didn't have a WR on the level of Julio Jones to take off any pressure.

 

Overall, I think Suh should have won it (he was, after all, the best player in the country), but if it was going to a RB, I think it should have gone to the one with more yards, several more TD's, and doing it against *statistically* better defenses.

[RedFlash]

Oh, I agree with that. Ingram was a better receiver. And, to be honest, while statistically, the Pac-10 rush defenses were better, we know why that is- the Pac 10 sucks at running the fotball, whereas the SEC runs better than it throws generally.

 

But, while Gerhart "needed" more carries, you have to consider some intangibles here. First, Gerhart did not have a backup to split carries with. Stanford's #2 rusher was Luck, and he averaged under 25 ypg. Ingram had Richardson who stole carries, sure, but also kept Ingram fresher, and helped wear down defenses. And while the QB's were basically a wash, Gerhart didn't have a WR on the level of Julio Jones to take off any pressure.

 

Overall, I think Suh should have won it (he was, after all, the best player in the country), but if it was going to a RB, I think it should have gone to the one with more yards, several more TD's, and doing it against *statistically* better defenses.

 

I agree that Suh should had gotten more votes, and possibly should have won the award, but your post about Toby getting robbed was, IMO saying that Ingram didn't deserve it and that I do take offense to(even if you meant it or not). Yes, I've seen Toby's stats, but there is at least three games, and maybe up to five games in which Toby had his stats padded, where is at least three games in which Ingram could have padded his stats. Ultimately had Ingram been allowed to pad his stats against teams like FIU, North Texas and Mississippi State there is a strong case you can make that Ingram could have finish the season with more yards and possibly touchdowns then Gerhart.

 

Ultimately you can blame the fact that Gerhart played on a west coast team. Right or wrong, Gerhart's name for the Heisman simply started to late.

[imb]

mark ingram is the worst heisman winner ever. that's a fact that most of us can agree on.

[Andy]

mark ingram is the worst heisman winner ever. that's a fact that most of us can agree on.

Crouch.

[dew1679666265]

I'll reiterate since I don't think I've said it enough:

 

Ndamukong Suh should have won the Heisman. It's supposed to go to the best player in the country and that was Suh.

[TheVolCub08]

Oh, I agree with that. Ingram was a better receiver. And, to be honest, while statistically, the Pac-10 rush defenses were better, we know why that is- the Pac 10 sucks at running the fotball, whereas the SEC runs better than it throws generally.

 

But, while Gerhart "needed" more carries, you have to consider some intangibles here. First, Gerhart did not have a backup to split carries with. Stanford's #2 rusher was Luck, and he averaged under 25 ypg. Ingram had Richardson who stole carries, sure, but also kept Ingram fresher, and helped wear down defenses. And while the QB's were basically a wash, Gerhart didn't have a WR on the level of Julio Jones to take off any pressure.

 

Overall, I think Suh should have won it (he was, after all, the best player in the country), but if it was going to a RB, I think it should have gone to the one with more yards, several more TD's, and doing it against *statistically* better defenses.

 

I agree that Suh should had gotten more votes, and possibly should have won the award, but your post about Toby getting robbed was, IMO saying that Ingram didn't deserve it and that I do take offense to(even if you meant it or not). Yes, I've seen Toby's stats, but there is at least three games, and maybe up to five games in which Toby had his stats padded, where is at least three games in which Ingram could have padded his stats. Ultimately had Ingram been allowed to pad his stats against teams like FIU, North Texas and Mississippi State there is a strong case you can make that Ingram could have finish the season with more yards and possibly touchdowns then Gerhart.

 

Ultimately you can blame the fact that Gerhart played on a west coast team. Right or wrong, Gerhart's name for the Heisman simply started to late.

 

What?!? Seriously... what?!? Against the 6 best defenses he faced, Gerhart averaged 147 ypg (more than his season avg). He rushed for more yardage against hose 6 than the worse 6, and his top performance of the season came against one of those top teams. Hell, Gerhart had as many TD's in those 6 ames as Ingram had all season.

 

Oh, and Toby did not face a FCS team, like Ingram did.

 

Padded his stats... lol. The inaccuracies never end.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

mark ingram is the worst heisman winner ever. that's a fact that most of us can agree on.

 

Worst winner since the last Bama guy to win the award.

[Cubswin11]

I'll reiterate since I don't think I've said it enough:

 

Ndamukong Suh should have won the Heisman. It's supposed to go to the best player in the country and that was Suh.

He'll be rewarded when he goes top 3 and gets a bigger contract than anyone else who was nominated.

[RedFlash]

mark ingram is the worst heisman winner ever. that's a fact that most of us can agree on.

 

Yes, a RB with over 1500 yards 15 TDs with under 250 carries, plus another 300 yards recieving and 3 more TDs is the worst Heisman winner ever. Not to mention he did in the SEC. I'm glad you don't have a vote for the Heisman.

 

Yes both Suh and Gerhart did deserve to win the Heisman, or they wouldn't have been invited to New York, but to me the bigger issue was why CJ Spiller wasn't invited to New York and Tim Tebow was? Why are we not having fits about that misjustice?

 

You can moan and groan about who won the Heisman, but the fact remains is was a close vote and even if Toby or Suh won people would be arguing the cases of those who lost. I don't know why people are upset about Suh not winning, cause Suh isn't. Everybody knows that defensives players are never going to win an offensive awards (fair or not), the fact that he made it to New York is a big effin deal.

 

Stop complaining and move on. Crying like a woman during childbirth isn't going to change the outcome.

[dew1679666265]

Interesting stat I read online:

 

If you average out the stats of the last three Heisman winning running backs (Reggie Bush, Ron Dayne and Ricky Williams), here's what you have:

1,899 yards/20 TDs/6.9 YPC

 

Here are Mark Ingram's stats this year:

1,542 yards/15 TDs/6.2 YPC

[dew1679666265]

I don't know why people are upset about Suh not winning, cause Suh isn't. Everybody knows that defensives players are never going to win an offensive awards (fair or not), the fact that he made it to New York is a big effin deal.

 

Tell Tennessee fans no defensive player will win the award. We're still pissed about the 97 Heisman. Suh absolutely should have won. Ingram had a great year and very much deserved top 5 consideration (probably top 3), but Suh was the best player in college football this year. And that's what the Heisman is supposed to be awarded for.

 

I agree with you on Spiller, though. He should have been in New York over Tebow.

[dew1679666265]

mark ingram is the worst heisman winner ever. that's a fact that most of us can agree on.

 

Worst winner since the last Bama guy to win the award.

 

You may know this and I just missed the joke, but Bama's never had a Heisman winner before.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

mark ingram is the worst heisman winner ever. that's a fact that most of us can agree on.

 

Worst winner since the last Bama guy to win the award.

 

You may know this and I just missed the joke, but Bama's never had a Heisman winner before.

 

Yep.

[dew1679666265]

mark ingram is the worst heisman winner ever. that's a fact that most of us can agree on.

 

Worst winner since the last Bama guy to win the award.

 

You may know this and I just missed the joke, but Bama's never had a Heisman winner before.

 

Yep.

 

When in doubt about joke posts, I should just wait til the afternoon when I'm awake, I guess.