What does your Heisman ballot look like?

[Elvado]

Not even good old Hifi would dare suggest that Alabama was not simply a superior football team. If Florida had a chance in this game, it was because they had "the better quarterback". Except on Saturday they did not as McElroy clearly outplayed Scripture Face.

[hifigator]

No argument there vado. And you're right. Going into the game, from every statistic you could analyze, Florida and Alabama were nearly twins. If you had to single out anything, it would have to be that Bama had the edge kicking, with Tiffen having a sizable experience edge over Sturgis. Similarly, you would've given the edge at QB to Florida with Tebow. Obviously on that day, McElroy stepped up and won the battle.

[Boz]

Possibly the most over-analyzed completely one-sided battle in the history of college football.

[CTHoya08]

I'm still not sure about hifi's SEC defenses argument. He's not saying that playing SEC defenses made Ingram's numbers worse that Gerhart, but he is saying playing SEC defenses week in and week out is tougher than playing the defense Gerhart faced. How are those different?

Furthermore, I don't think the academics point was that Gerhart should get a bump for being a "scholar-athlete." I think it was that because Stanford has (or might have) higher academic requirements for its players, he's surrounded by less talent than Ingram is at Alabama, which negates some of the advantage he has in facing weaker defenses.

I could be wrong on both of these points though, because I'm trying to parse what other people said.

[jgalt]

Florida Lost

Alabama was better

Scripture face is NOT the best player to every breath

It is annoying that some people think this.

Spear House should win the Heisman

Can we move on? I try to limit my exposure to hifi to three posts a day but this thread is killing me here and i actually like the topic it is supposed to be about so i would like to get back to that.

[hifigator]

Dec 9, 2009 16:03:45 GMT -5 CTHoya08 said:

I'm still not sure about hifi's SEC defenses argument. He's not saying that playing SEC defenses made Ingram's numbers worse that Gerhart, but he is saying playing SEC defenses week in and week out is tougher than playing the defense Gerhart faced. How are those different?

Furthermore, I don't think the academics point was that Gerhart should get a bump for being a "scholar-athlete." I think it was that because Stanford has (or might have) higher academic requirements for its players, he's surrounded by less talent than Ingram is at Alabama, which negates some of the advantage he has in facing weaker defenses.

I could be wrong on both of these points though, because I'm trying to parse what other people said.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here. With respect to Gerhart, I think his numbers, impressive though they are, were put up largely against inferior defenses that gave up lots of yardage and points. That's all I'm saying. In a sense, it's like the argument against the quarterback from Houston. For the most part, the teams in C-USA are second tier teams with suspect defenses. Additionally, their system is designed for a wide open attack and designed to put a lot of points on the board at the expense of giving up a lot of points. There's nothing wrong with that inherantly. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that numbers put up in such a system aren't directly comparable to those put up against an SEC or Big 10 schedule. Think Texas Tech last year or Hawaii two years ago, but not as extreme. That's all I'm saying. Now as for your parallel, I think you could make a case for the argument that Gerhart wasn't surrounded by as much talent as some other teams, for WHATEVER reason. Whether it's because of academic standards or not doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, not being surrounded by talented players is generally treated as a negative in Heisman voting not a positive. The reason is that players on the more elite teams have an advantage, not a disadvantage. It's not surprising that Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow were frontrunners all year. As long as their teams remained undefeated that wasn't going to change.

On to another topic.

[kchoya]

www.stiffarmtrophy.com/ has Ingram narrowly over Suh and then Gerhart. Interesting that Suh has a wide lead in first place votes, but is named on 18 less ballots than Ingram.

[FewFAC]

I found a madlib!

I don't want to beat a dead horse here. With respect to Ingram, I think his numbers, impressive though they are, were put up largely by inferior offenses that rarely scored or moved the ball. That's all I'm saying. In a sense, it's like the argument against the quarterback from Florida. For the most part, the teams in the SEC are second tier teams with suspect offenses. Additionally, their system is designed to get shut down and designed to put a lot of points via field goals at the expense of offensive efficiency. There's nothing wrong with that inherantly. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that numbers put up in such a system aren't directly comparable to those put up against an PAC-10 or Big East schedule. Think Alabama last year or LSU two years ago, but not as extreme. That's all I'm saying. Now as for your parallel, I think you could make a case for the argument that Ingram was surrounded by as much talent as some other teams, for WHATEVER reason. Whether it's because of academic standards or not doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, being surrounded by talented players is generally treated as a negative in Heisman voting not a positive when you put up inferior numbers. The reason is that players on the more elite teams have an advantage, not a disadvantage. It's not surprising that Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow were frontrunners all year. As long as their teams remained undefeated that wasn't going to change, though they didn't, or didn't impress.

[redskins12820]

Dec 9, 2009 17:22:46 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Dec 9, 2009 16:03:45 GMT -5 CTHoya08 said:

I'm still not sure about hifi's SEC defenses argument. He's not saying that playing SEC defenses made Ingram's numbers worse that Gerhart, but he is saying playing SEC defenses week in and week out is tougher than playing the defense Gerhart faced. How are those different?

Furthermore, I don't think the academics point was that Gerhart should get a bump for being a "scholar-athlete." I think it was that because Stanford has (or might have) higher academic requirements for its players, he's surrounded by less talent than Ingram is at Alabama, which negates some of the advantage he has in facing weaker defenses.

I could be wrong on both of these points though, because I'm trying to parse what other people said.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here. With respect to Gerhart, I think his numbers, impressive though they are, were put up largely against inferior defenses that gave up lots of yardage and points. That's all I'm saying. In a sense, it's like the argument against the quarterback from Houston. For the most part, the teams in C-USA are second tier teams with suspect defenses. Additionally, their system is designed for a wide open attack and designed to put a lot of points on the board at the expense of giving up a lot of points. There's nothing wrong with that inherantly. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that numbers put up in such a system aren't directly comparable to those put up against an SEC or Big 10 schedule. Think Texas Tech last year or Hawaii two years ago, but not as extreme. That's all I'm saying. Now as for your parallel, I think you could make a case for the argument that Gerhart wasn't surrounded by as much talent as some other teams, for WHATEVER reason. Whether it's because of academic standards or not doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, not being surrounded by talented players is generally treated as a negative in Heisman voting not a positive. The reason is that players on the more elite teams have an advantage, not a disadvantage. It's not surprising that Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow were frontrunners all year. As long as their teams remained undefeated that wasn't going to change.

On to another topic.

Not so fast my friend. These same amazing SEC defenses were the ones (Tennessee) that lost to the 8th place Pac-10 team (UCLA) at home while going against a freshman QB and (LSU) one that gave up 478 yards to the 7th place Pac-10 team. Oh and Georgia beat the 9th place Pac-10 team by a total of 3 points at home.

In years past, yes the SEC defenses were good. This year? They weren't. Don't let reputation blind you. The Pac-10 was probably the best conference top to bottom this year in the country and playing 9 conference games, which no other conference does, means there's one fewer lightweight to beat up on.

[jgalt]

Dec 11, 2009 18:40:55 GMT -5 kchoya said:

www.stiffarmtrophy.com/ has Ingram narrowly over Suh and then Gerhart. Interesting that Suh has a wide lead in first place votes, but is named on 18 less ballots than Ingram.

Fewer ballots.

That is all

[nashvillehoyas]

Alabama's Ingram for Heisman. Interesting, he will be the first Crimson Tide to receive honor.

[kchoya]

Dec 11, 2009 23:39:24 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Dec 11, 2009 18:40:55 GMT -5 kchoya said:

www.stiffarmtrophy.com/ has Ingram narrowly over Suh and then Gerhart. Interesting that Suh has a wide lead in first place votes, but is named on 18 less ballots than Ingram.

Fewer ballots.

That is all

You're a deleted.

[FewFAC]

Well, the upside is Tebow got the fewest votes. Surprised the SEC voters abandoned Tebow so decisively in what would otherwise have split the southeast region. Out of everyone who has played for Alabama, is Ingram really the best?

[whatmaroon]

Well, will be Ingram prediction was right, though Gerhart was closer than I thought he'd be.

The problem with Alabama is they hadn't really had the sort of singular offensive "skill position" star that tends to win the Heisman-Shaun Alexander was recent, but Dayne's numbers dwarfed his. Maybe Namath or Stabler in the 60's should have won. Really, the previous top Crimson Tide finisher by rank was David Palmer finishing 3rd, and he had like 15% of Charlie Ward's votes that year.

[TigerHoya]

I thought Ingram should have won. Spiller was more deserving of Tebow, IMO.

[hifigator]

fewfac ... should be "fewfacts" ... parodied these words:

I don't want to beat a dead horse here. With respect to Ingram, I think his numbers, impressive though they are, were put up largely by inferior offenses that rarely scored or moved the ball. That's all I'm saying. In a sense, it's like the argument against the quarterback from Florida. For the most part, the teams in the SEC are second tier teams with suspect offenses. Additionally, their system is designed to get shut down and designed to put a lot of points via field goals at the expense of offensive efficiency. There's nothing wrong with that inherantly. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that numbers put up in such a system aren't directly comparable to those put up against an PAC-10 or Big East schedule. Think Alabama last year or LSU two years ago, but not as extreme. That's all I'm saying. Now as for your parallel, I think you could make a case for the argument that Ingram was surrounded by as much talent as some other teams, for WHATEVER reason. Whether it's because of academic standards or not doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, being surrounded by talented players is generally treated as a negative in Heisman voting not a positive when you put up inferior numbers. The reason is that players on the more elite teams have an advantage, not a disadvantage. It's not surprising that Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow were frontrunners all year. As long as their teams remained undefeated that wasn't going to change, though they didn't, or didn't impress.


While I appreciate your humor and attention to detail, I hope you aren't being serious. First off, the suggestion that Ingram's numbers were put up by inferior offenses, just doesn't make any sense. Now I know you mean to say that SEC offenses in general weren't great, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand -- how worthy was Ingram? Secondly, the fact that the defenses were better in the SEC than in the Pac 10 directly relates to Ingram and Gerhart's numbers. Even if the offenses in the SEC were awful, that wouldn't relate to Ingrams stats, and in actuality, would make them that much more impressive, as teams would more easily be geared to stopping that one back since the offenses aren't good. The rest of what you said, actually makes sense. Of course it should -- I said it first!



redskins wrote:

Not so fast my friend. These same amazing SEC defenses were the ones (Tennessee) that lost to the 8th place Pac-10 team (UCLA) at home while going against a freshman QB and (LSU) one that gave up 478 yards to the 7th place Pac-10 team. Oh and Georgia beat the 9th place Pac-10 team by a total of 3 points at home.

In years past, yes the SEC defenses were good. This year? They weren't. Don't let reputation blind you. The Pac-10 was probably the best conference top to bottom this year in the country and playing 9 conference games, which no other conference does, means there's one fewer lightweight to beat up on.

I think you overlook quite a bit. You single out a Georgia team whose defense was the worst they've had in 30 years and an LSU win that was in the first week of the season, on the road ... and not just on the road, 3000 miles away, and against a team that was tremendously improved from last season. Oh, and their young quarterback isn't so young anymore, and by many accounts is one of the top 3 NFL prospects at QB (Locker).
Also, while I agree that the Tennessee loss to UCLA was an ugly one, Tennesse -- as much as I hate to say it -- got quite a bit better as the season went on. Imagine that -- they weren't very good in their first real game against a real opponent with an entirely new coaching staff. That UCLA team wouldn't have beaten Tennessee in the last game of the season, for sure. As for the defenses in the SEC overall ... I think it's hard to say. Florida and Alabama certainly had great defenses. Tennessee also had a very good defense. LSU did as well. Even Arkansas had a surprisingly good defense, as well as Ole Miss -- which was a good thing since Jevon Snead regressed tremendously this season. South Carolina and Vanderbilt both had good defensese as well. Sure, the have-nots were your typical names -- Kentucky and Miss. St. didn't put up much of a fight and as mentioned before, Georgia had their worst defense in decades. All in all, I don't think any any team around the Country would want to play the defenses in the SEC. There's not another conference with better defenses top to bottom. Now as for offenses, I think you are correct. The Pac 10 had more firepower top to bottom for sure. Part of that is the schemes that the Pac 10 chooses on both sides of the ball. But part of it was simply the tremendous youth at QB in the SEC. Going into the season, there was a major question of who had the 3rd best QB in the conference. The consensus was that Tebow and Snead were 1-2, but there was a huge question mark behind them. Crompton at Tennessee, Cox at Georgia, Cobb/Hartline at Kentucky, Mallett at Arkansas, McElroy at Bama etc... all were uncertainties. As the season played out, some did very well -- Mallett and McElroy. Others didn't fare so well. The point is that offenses were expected to have some growing pains this season and they did. Top to bottom overall would be a tough one. The Pac 10 doesn't have a team as good as Bama or Florida. But after that I could see a lot of competitive games. Washington St. probably wouldn't beat an SEC team except Vandy, but most of the other teams would likely be competitive from both conferences. Lastly, if you really think that the SEC doesn't have the most talent on the defensive side of the ball, just wait until after the next few NFL drafts. I think you will be "pleasantly" surprised at the wealth of talent currently in the SEC.

[TBird41]

Dec 14, 2009 11:57:54 GMT -5 hifigator said:

fewfac ... should be "fewfacts" ... parodied these words:

I don't want to beat a dead horse here. With respect to Ingram, I think his numbers, impressive though they are, were put up largely by inferior offenses that rarely scored or moved the ball. That's all I'm saying. In a sense, it's like the argument against the quarterback from Florida. For the most part, the teams in the SEC are second tier teams with suspect offenses. Additionally, their system is designed to get shut down and designed to put a lot of points via field goals at the expense of offensive efficiency. There's nothing wrong with that inherantly. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that numbers put up in such a system aren't directly comparable to those put up against an PAC-10 or Big East schedule. Think Alabama last year or LSU two years ago, but not as extreme. That's all I'm saying. Now as for your parallel, I think you could make a case for the argument that Ingram was surrounded by as much talent as some other teams, for WHATEVER reason. Whether it's because of academic standards or not doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, being surrounded by talented players is generally treated as a negative in Heisman voting not a positive when you put up inferior numbers. The reason is that players on the more elite teams have an advantage, not a disadvantage. It's not surprising that Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow were frontrunners all year. As long as their teams remained undefeated that wasn't going to change, though they didn't, or didn't impress.


While I appreciate your humor and attention to detail, I hope you aren't being serious. First off, the suggestion that Ingram's numbers were put up by inferior offenses, just doesn't make any sense. Now I know you mean to say that SEC offenses in general weren't great, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand -- how worthy was Ingram? Secondly, the fact that the defenses were better in the SEC than in the Pac 10 directly relates to Ingram and Gerhart's numbers. Even if the offenses in the SEC were awful, that wouldn't relate to Ingrams stats, and in actuality, would make them that much more impressive, as teams would more easily be geared to stopping that one back since the offenses aren't good. The rest of what you said, actually makes sense. Of course it should -- I said it first!



redskins wrote:

Not so fast my friend. These same amazing SEC defenses were the ones (Tennessee) that lost to the 8th place Pac-10 team (UCLA) at home while going against a freshman QB and (LSU) one that gave up 478 yards to the 7th place Pac-10 team. Oh and Georgia beat the 9th place Pac-10 team by a total of 3 points at home.

In years past, yes the SEC defenses were good. This year? They weren't. Don't let reputation blind you. The Pac-10 was probably the best conference top to bottom this year in the country and playing 9 conference games, which no other conference does, means there's one fewer lightweight to beat up on.

I think you overlook quite a bit. You single out a Georgia team whose defense was the worst they've had in 30 years and an LSU win that was in the first week of the season, on the road ... and not just on the road, 3000 miles away, and against a team that was tremendously improved from last season. Oh, and their young quarterback isn't so young anymore, and by many accounts is one of the top 3 NFL prospects at QB (Locker).
Also, while I agree that the Tennessee loss to UCLA was an ugly one, Tennesse -- as much as I hate to say it -- got quite a bit better as the season went on. Imagine that -- they weren't very good in their first real game against a real opponent with an entirely new coaching staff. That UCLA team wouldn't have beaten Tennessee in the last game of the season, for sure. As for the defenses in the SEC overall ... I think it's hard to say. Florida and Alabama certainly had great defenses. Tennessee also had a very good defense. LSU did as well. Even Arkansas had a surprisingly good defense, as well as Ole Miss -- which was a good thing since Jevon Snead regressed tremendously this season. South Carolina and Vanderbilt both had good defensese as well. Sure, the have-nots were your typical names -- Kentucky and Miss. St. didn't put up much of a fight and as mentioned before, Georgia had their worst defense in decades. All in all, I don't think any any team around the Country would want to play the defenses in the SEC. There's not another conference with better defenses top to bottom. Now as for offenses, I think you are correct. The Pac 10 had more firepower top to bottom for sure. Part of that is the schemes that the Pac 10 chooses on both sides of the ball. But part of it was simply the tremendous youth at QB in the SEC. Going into the season, there was a major question of who had the 3rd best QB in the conference. The consensus was that Tebow and Snead were 1-2, but there was a huge question mark behind them. Crompton at Tennessee, Cox at Georgia, Cobb/Hartline at Kentucky, Mallett at Arkansas, McElroy at Bama etc... all were uncertainties. As the season played out, some did very well -- Mallett and McElroy. Others didn't fare so well. The point is that offenses were expected to have some growing pains this season and they did. Top to bottom overall would be a tough one. The Pac 10 doesn't have a team as good as Bama or Florida. But after that I could see a lot of competitive games. Washington St. probably wouldn't beat an SEC team except Vandy, but most of the other teams would likely be competitive from both conferences. Lastly, if you really think that the SEC doesn't have the most talent on the defensive side of the ball, just wait until after the next few NFL drafts. I think you will be "pleasantly" surprised at the wealth of talent currently in the SEC.

Pretty sure I saw Tebow crying after he lost the award.

[CAHoya07]

While I haven't really watched Ingram play, I still think Gerhart should have won. Pro-SEC, anti-Pac 10 bias.

[hifigator]

Tbird wrote:

Pretty sure I saw Tebow crying after he lost the award.

Now, I'm postitive you're drunk.


Ca wrote:

While I haven't really watched Ingram play, I still think Gerhart should have won. Pro-SEC, anti-Pac 10 bias.

While I agree that there is some east coast bias, I don't think that played into this much. Gerhart swept his region. If Gerhart was "punished" though, it was because the Pac 10 doensn't have a championship game. He didn't have the chance to showcase his skills on the National stage with the entire Nation watching, like Ingram, Tebow, Suh and McCoy did.

[Elvado]

Your boy Scripture Face would have been better off with no title game...