Heisman is a Hoax, This Popularity Contest Needs an Overhaul

By: James Adkins

Congratulations to Alabama running Mark Ingram for winning the 2009 Heisman Popularity Contest.

You see, everyone loves a winner, including the media who vote each year on the player most deserving of the Heisman Trophy. Unfortunately, the misperception that the country's best player must be a member of one of its best teams has turned the award into a hoax.

For Ingram, all winning the Heisman proves is that he's the best player on one of the country's best teams.

The Heisman Trophy espouses itself as the award to recognize the most outstanding college football player in the country, but the ambiguous nature of the award's voting process has allowed it to become a sham.

More often than not, the best players on the best teams are simply another cog in the machine. Their statistics and success are a byproduct of the talent around them, and the fact that they are man-for-man more talented than their opponents.

Conversely, for players on less talented teams, the argument can be made that it's more difficult to put up a Heisman-worthy season because they have less talent around them.

When these players put up great numbers and lead their teams to victory, it's often in spite of their supporting cast and they are typically playing a far greater role in that team's success.

This season, Alabama's Ingram wasn't the country's best player. He didn't lead Division I football in any major statistical category. In fact, there were actually two other running backs his own team (Roy Upchurch and Demetrius Goode) that averaged more yards per carry than Ingram.

It is entirely possible that if Coach Nick Saban would have stuck with either of the other two backs this season, they could have produced every bit as well as Ingram.

The Heisman this season should have been a coin flip between the best two players that were irreplaceable to their teams: Ndamukong Suh and Toby Gerhart.

Suh, while touted by most as the probable overall top selection in next April's NFL draft, apparently wasn't good enough in the eyes of Heisman voters.

For the second season in a row, Suh led one of the country's best defenses in tackles, sacks, hurries, blocked kicks, and tackles for loss. His presence on the Cornhuskers defense made every other player on the squad better, and his team always had a shot to win because of Suh.

Gerhart, did nothing less than lead the country in every major rushing category: yards, TDs, attempts, and scoring. He didn't just lead all RBs in scoring, he led all of Division I in scoring. By comparison, Ingram ranked 14th in scoring.

The 235 pound Stanford senior led the country in runs of over 10 yards, with 50. That number is phenomenal considering he faced four defenses in the Pac-10 (Arizona, Arizona St, Oregon St, and Cal) that allowed less than 120 ypg. Ingram faced only one defense that good (Florida, 102.3 ypg).

The Stanford runner also ran for 100 yards in 10 of his 12 games, including three games with over 200 yards. Ingram, by contrast, only ran for 100 yards eight times, hitting the 200-yard mark just once.

Why didn't Suh or Gerhart win the Heisman? Simply put, their teams didn't win enough, as both played for four-loss teams.

In the future, here's to hoping that the Heisman committee listens to those who are critical of the current voting process.

Because without changing the criteria by which voters cast their votes, the Heisman Trophy will continue to be given to an above-average player on a great team, while college football's best players are only recognized by the other collegiate awards handed out in the two weeks prior to the Heisman.

Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Categories: College Football, NCAA Football
Tags: Heisman Trophy, Mark Ingram, Ndamukong Suh, Toby Gerhart, Nick Saban, Alabama, Stanford, Nebraska

Of course Demetrius Goode had more YPC than Ingram. He only had 16 carries. That shouldn't be grounds for comparison. You are an idiot.

Jim Posted At 12/13/2009 04:32 PM

THE HEISMAN VOTING IS A JOKE

None of the QBs at Flordia, Alabama and Texas are as good as Houston's Case Keenum. None of them have to work as hard as Keenum does to score points either. Their defenses win their games for them. If Houston had even an average defense, the Cougars would not just be undefeated, they would be slaughtering every team they faced. If Houston had a great defense it would give their offense even more time on the field to score points. Even if Houston has only 15 minutes of time of possession they still greatly outscore their opponents. If Tebow, McCoy or Ingram played on a team with a defense like Houston's their teams would be almost winless. But according to the powers-that-be, the best offensive college football player should be determined by a team's defense, not by the offensive talent of the quarterback. The bias is absolutely shameful.

If Houston had a defense that could keep their opponent's offense off the field Case Keenum would be racking up 75 points, 10 TDs and 1,000 yards a game. In last Saturday's game, Case Keenum only played the first two quarters and he led the team to 59 points in the first half. Houston didn't play their first teams the rest of the game or the game would have been a 120 point rout. Maybe that's what they should have done because Case Keenum could have thrown for at least 10 touchdowns and threw for 1,200 yards. But what the hell, no one seems to give a damn about statistics this year anyway. They have already anointed one of their 'chosen three' to be the Heisman winner.

It's sad how the powers-that-be are going to award the Heisman to a lesser quality player just because of bias and team ranking. Keenum is by far the best QB in the country. But it seems as if the powers-that-be already determined who was going to win the Heisman before the season even started. Hell, I bet they even have Sam Bradford ahead of Case Keenum, and he only played in a couple of games and he didn't even perform that well in those games. What a crock. Isn't there one honest sportswriter, coach, or announcer 'out there'? It doesn't look like it.

OK, I'm sorry for taking time away from worshipping Florida, Texas and Alabama. You can go back to idolizing your less talented quarterbacks and over ranked teams now.

BTW, I wonder who the powers-that-be have determined who will win next year's Heisman. Has that leaked out yet? Or are we going to have to wait until next August to find out who wins next year's Heisman Trophy? What a joke...

Sportswriters are IDIOTS Posted At 12/13/2009 04:33 PM

Jim, the point of including the other two backs from Alabama in the discussion was to point out that any of their backs could run behind that offensive line.

James Adkins Posted At 12/13/2009 07:32 PM

I understand your point about Ingram running behind that line, but that can be said about any good running back. You are only as good as your offensive line. No offensive line = no blocking = no rushing attack.

I personally think Suh should have won, but any of the candidates were worthy. Nobody was a clear favorite, thats why they gave it to Ingram. He probably won it with his performance in the SEC Championship game.

Double G Sports [Web Site] Posted At 12/14/2009 07:49 AM

I agree that Ingram shouldnt have won the Heisman. You cant say that he wasnt one the top RB's in college football this year though. He produced amazing stats in the SEC. Not taking anything away from Gerhart, but I think if Ingram was on that team, we would have done just as well. Suh to me was hands down the best player in college football this year. I'm not even a Nebraska fan, but I respect the body of work this guy put together this year.

Mike Posted At 12/14/2009 10:35 AM

Suh probably would have been my vote and Colt McCoy would have been my next vote.

SCUBA [Web Site] Posted At 12/14/2009 11:25 AM

Comments :

Name :

Email :

URL :

Validation :

(Enter the code listed above to validate your request)

Comments :