Also: 59-20. Compare and contrast. Oh wait, they voted on this after the conference championship games, so…
Also: 51-13. Compare and contrast.
Or how about 788-37 (margin of Heisman 1st place votes)? Glad to see that we have posters here who know so much more about football than the Heisman voters do.
No shit? Mariota won the Heisman? Holy Cow, well that certainly settles it for all time. Why bother having, or daring to express, an opinion on a topic when it’s already been voted on? Thanks, Thing Fish, for pointing that out, because without this valuable help, I never would have found out Mariota actually won the Heisman. Now, I have to go apologize to OJ Simpson for thinking he’s guilty, to Driving Miss Daisy for thinking My Left Foot or Born on the Fourth of July should have won the Oscar, and to Matt Leinart who beat Adrian Peterson for the Heisman.
Nice soliloquy,** Hamlet**!
I don’t have a problem with your opinion that Gordon deserved the Heisman. Certainly he had a great season, and the decision of who is the “best” player is ultimately subjective; it’s not like there is some equation you can plug everyone’s stats into and derive the objectively correct answer. After all, 4% of the Heisman voters did agree with you, so clearly you’re not making some crazy argument; it’s not like you’re trying to give the Heisman to Justin Bieber or something.
I don’t think any of the points that you have made in this thread are so silly as to be dismissed out of hand. Primarily I was responding to BigAppleBucky’s ridiculous post above, in which he uses superficial statistical similarity to argue that Mariota, who got 88% of the first place votes and will certainly be one of the first half dozen players drafted, actually had a season slightly worse than 2011 Russell Wilson, who placed ninth in the voting and was drafted in the third round. So either those statistics are grossly misleading or the Heisman voters are complete idiots…if you think it is the latter, why would you care enough about this award to even argue about it?
If you want to argue that Gordon was slightly better than Mariota, go for it. If you want to argue that Mariota’s season wasn’t anything particularly special at all, I’m going to make fun of you.
Yes. Well. I just went ahead and added the bowl results to the objective ranking system I’ve been playing with this season, and the results were…
- Mighty Oregon
- Florida State! (cue irritating chant)
- TCU
- Ohio State
- Michigan State
- Alabama
- Baylor
(huge gap here – the system clearly sees these 7 teams as the cream) - UCLA
- Arizona State
t10. Kansas State/Clemson
Frankly, the main thing I take from this is that I need to figure out how to revise the system to take margins of defeat and victory into account. Still, it is true that FSU lost only one game this year, and it was to one of the very best teams in the country. Nobody else other than TCU (who didn’t win their conference) can say that. So maybe they could have made the Alamo Bowl if they were in the Pac-12.
A Wisconsin running back isn’t going to win the Heisman again until at least one of them makes a big splash in the NFL. They keep underachieving, and Heisman voters downgrade them and give the credit to their huge O-lines for their production. Ron Dayne had a decent career but not better than decent. Montee Ball was on the verge of losing his starting spot on the Broncos right before he got hurt. John Clay had a cup of coffee with Pittsburgh. James White has barely seen the field for New England.
All these guys had amazing stats for the Badgers.
Wait, what?
The Heisman voters should only vote for a player whose predecessors at that school and at that position have demonstrated value in the NFL?
No offense intended, but are you nuts?
No, the point is that a running back’s stats at Wisconsin are inflated due to their style of play and the huge line they run behind. Results in the NFL add legitimacy to that point of view.
Well, that’s fucked up if Bama is no higher than 6th. In fact, they need to scrap this stupid playoff thing and go back to the BCS. Something is clearly wrong if there isn’t at least one SEC team in the championship game.
Clearly Mariota benefited unfairly from his linkage to such future NFL Hall of Famers as Joey Harrington, Kellen Clemens, Dennis Dixon and Jeremiah Masoli! I could go on, but I don’t want to.
How are those read/option Heisman QB’s doing in the NFL? Tebow’s really tearing the NFL apart, isn’t he? And, my god, that RGIII is a stud. Troy Smith is a perennial Pro Bowler, Sam Bradford is killing it, and Jason White is all that and a bag of chips. We could go old school, with Danny Wuerffel, Eric Crouch, Charlie Ward, and Gino Torretta if you like too.
So what? Since when does NFL success have anything to do with a Heisman?
You guys aren’t getting my point. My point is that a running back at Wisconsin isn’t as good as his statistics alone indicate. If you’re the lead back at Wisconsin, you’re going to have great stats - they all do.
Ron Dayne has the best stats of any running back ever, but the fact is he wasn’t as good as his stats.
Some guy named B.J. Symons threw for 5833 yards and 52 touchdowns in 2003 for Texas Tech. He finished 10th in the Heisman voting, because his stats were seen as a product of the system he played in. The voters devalued them, just like they did with Melvin Gordon’s.
They don’t, and I didn’t say they did. You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting my example.
You said that “A Wisconsin running back isn’t going to win the Heisman again until at least one of them makes a big splash in the NFL”, and that this is because
Clearly you think that Heisman voting and NFL success (of a candidate’s predecessors at his school and position) have* something* to do with each other.
If the voters do think that way (which clearly they DON’T, given that they just gave the award to an Oregon QB!), it would be remarkably lazy thinking. Even if you assume that Wisconsin RBs in general tend to be overrated, it wouldn’t follow that any particular one of them was. Likewise, if Melvin Gordon tears up the NFL, that shouldn’t affect anyone’s opinion of his successor at Wisconsin.
I am curious, are you just saying that the voters DO think like this, or are you also saying that it makes sense for them to do so?
Who would you have given the 1999 Heisman to? Of course now, with his pro career, I know it’s extremely easy now to say Drew Brees, but back then not many people considered him even on the same level as Dayne.
Yes, I do think this.
Oregon QB’s have had success in the NFL, though. Dan Fouts and Joey Harrington come to mind. Harrington would have had a much more successful career if he hadn’t been drafted by the most f’ed up team in the last 30 years in the NFL (at the time.)
I think that Heisman voters do think like that, and to a certain extent should. Just as you would discount the QB statistics of a QB from Hawaii under June Jones.
I don’t have any idea why this would be a controversial position. Statistics don’t tell the whole story, or B.J. Symons would have a statue on his mantle.
Of course statistics don’t tell the whole story, they always need to be looked at in context. I (and apparently others) feel that looking at the NFL careers of a player’s recent predecessors is a poor way of judging that context. If you are arguing that Gordon’s rushing stats were inflated by Wisconsin’s amazingly dominant offensive line, I would be much more interested in evidence showing that Wisconsin’s OL was actually dominant* in this particular year* than in talking about the woes of James White.
Looking at this specific issue a little more closely, only two Wisconsin RBs since Ron Dayne have even been nominated for the Heisman (Ball and Gordon), and nobody outside Madison expected either of them to actually win. So it’s not like the Heisman voters have been burned by a long string of over-hyped Badger busts. They appear to be capable of distinguishing between Melvin Gordon’s amazing stats and those of John Clay.
Since 1998, Wisconsin RBs have been nominated for the Doak Walker award ten times (seven different guys), while their OL men have been nominated for the Outland Trophy only four times. This would seem to contradict the assertion that there is some widespread perception that the historic success of the Wisconsin running game is primarily due to their line. Maybe it might be that having a history of great running backs makes it easier to recruit great running backs?
You’re completely right! 2 losses shouldn’t matter to anybody - it’s not winning that mattes, it’s what conference you play in. The SEC fucking rulez!!!1!!!
Seriously dude. The SEC Champ (just like FSU) had their chance to prove it on the field. They lost. Get over it.
There are five times as many starting O-Lineman in football than running backs. That alone accounts for the difference. In fact, if things were equal, you’s expect a lot more running back nominations.