Monday, December 14, 2009

Hear Me Out On This One...

Mark Ingram won the Heisman Saturday night.

I have no problem with that.

In what became the closest vote in the stiff-arm's long and illustriously hyped history, this might allow for those pundits who care, to whip up big old batches of OUTRAGE!

Gerhardt's numbers were off the charts!
McCoy's body of work deserved consideration!
Suh was a one-man wrecking crew!
Tebow shouldn't have been knocked for one bad game!

And on and on. Whatever. All fine college players. A few of them might even be good pros.

The problem with the Heisman, is the hype. Plain and simple.

The award, is a BACKS award. Period. Quarter and running.

Aside from three blips in the last 60 years (Charles Woodson who played a dabble of offense to help him out, Tim Brown the Golden Domer, and Desmond Howard who had the balls to actually pose for the thing like he was begging)it's been all quarter and running.

So really, the award doesn't deserve any media elevation than say the Butkus, the Outland, or the Nagurski.

But hyped, it still gets.

So to fix this bit of silliness, we need to do one of two things.

Either "demote" the Heisman to just another award ("Backs only, please!") or make another one.

Yeah, a Defensive Heisman.

Why the hell not? If you think about it, it makes perfect bookend sense. You can go back through the years and pick a defensive legend and a pose that is worthy of the trophy. You can invite 10 players to the party each December in New York City.

And then you can have a more rational debate about the merits of players on each side of the ball. As it stands now, there's no way a bunch of sportswriters (or even the former winners) can decide if Suh was better than Ingram.

I think it would be cool. Most people I've run this past, think I am advocating something akin to a "second Christmas" in July.

Come on, you traditionalists. When you look at the HYPE-sman's history, you will have to admit, that we make way too big a deal of this thing.


  1. One thing I don't get is the Heisman is for the most outstanding player of the year. Not the most valuable player. What's the difference?

    I've even read some sportswriters base their vote on this. Their logic goes along the lines of...
    I would vote for player X if the award was for the most valuable player, but since the award is for most outstanding, I'm voting for player Y.

    I've read the same thing for NFL and MLB MVP. He's the best player, but he's not the most valuable. It's like saying we would prefer our best QB to get a season ending injury over our backup because our backup is more valuable to the team.

    Anyway, the true measure of the best player in CFB is who gets picked first in the draft. I value the opinion of those who are shelling out $60 million bucks over the sportswriters. I suspect, by this measure, Suh is the best player.

  2. I find it very frustrating to come over to your website after a good game by redskins and never find a comment from you. Is this coincidental? I thought you would provide some good insight into the cowboys, saints and the raiders game. All you come up with is the kicker being booted?

  3. Amen, brother Steve. I've felt a Defensive Heisman was needed ever since Hugh Green got jobbed in 1980. I fail to believe Charles Woodson is the only defensive player in the history of college football to be worthy of the award.

    The Heisman Trophy: IT'S A SCAM!!!

  4. I said that to someone Saturday as well that the Heisman is the most over hyped thing in sports. It typically doesn't equate to the best athletic player or the best player to have a pro career. It's is the best college year and since people actually put together packages to promote their player it turns into a recruiting tool to say they had X amount of heisman winners at their school. I never watch the award presentation and the only reason i think it still gets as much hype is because it's on the 4 letter and anything the 4 letter carries gets hype as a marking and promotion tool.