College Football 2009

[cactuswatcher]

This is one of those years when thinking back no one will remember who won the Heisman trophy. It's not that Mark Ingram isn't a decent choice. He's just not a great one. The great alternative just wasn't there this year. If Ingram were competing for the trophy alone with Herschel Walker he'd come in third. Or against Billy Sims or against any number of great running backs of the past. As a running back he's undoubtedly better than old-time LSU Heisman winner Billy Cannon was. But then Cannon was also a fine defensive back and could punt. Reporters never remember that quarterbacks and halfbacks are only as good as their blocking. With great blocking for him at Ohio State, Archie Griffin was a world beater. With ho hum blocking in the pros, Archie quickly disappeared. At USC with a line better than anything else in the PAC 10, Matt Leinhart looked terrific. In the pros he's been a second-stringer from day one, even on a team with a line good enough to make the Super Bowl last year.

It's well to remember that the Heisman is just a trophy awarded by an athletic club in a city in a region which hasn't been known for great college football since the mid 1930's . Having reporters from around the country choose the winner sounds great, but frankly there aren't any Grantland Rices or Ring Lardners doing sports any more. Even in the old days those guys were the exceptions. By and large the writers and TV folk are plodders who hate defense and think the football they cover in their area is the best no matter what. It's hilarious listening to the locals here and LA talk about how great PAC 10 football is now. USC collapses this year so the PAC 10 is great. By the same logic Oklahoma collapses this year so the Big 12 stinks. Remember all the whining about the Big 12 not playing defense the last few years? The rules on holding change for the better, McCoy, Tebow and virtually every other quarterback can't do as they please against the better teams, and suddenly the Heisman goes to a running back. Surprise, surprise. Again there's nothing wrong with Ingram winning. It's just that the people voting aren't paying a lot of attention to why certain positions stand out at certain times. It would take a much smarter bunch of folks voting to get allowance made for that. We'd be better off letting reporters vote for a "local Heisman" within their home regions and have eight to ten "Heisman" winners. Better to leave the national best player to the imagination, since in the end the award counts for very little any way.

Comments

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

College Football's always been a regional game. Even with ESPN. You get better analysis online with some of the better blogs and sites (Scout.com CFN, Dr. Saturday) but it helps to watch a lot and look at what teams do out of conference. The Big 12 North really was weak, the PAC-10 really was better.

But in the end Ingram wins the Heisman this year for pretty much the same reason Gino Torreta won in 1992 - because he's the leading scorer on the Nation's #1 team. In a year when he's acknowledged not to be the best player at his position (Toby Gerhart won the Doak Walker) even in his own league (Missippi State's Anthony Dixon) nor even the best player on his own team. (LB Rolando McClain)

But then, in 1992, they weren't going to give it to Marshall Faulk because he was an underclassman playing games at midnight EST at San Diego State no matter how much better a player he was.

As for this year's quaterbacks - the problem is that our writers only paid attention to gloryboys like Tebow, Bradford and McCoy and ignored the great years by Kellen Moore, Case Keenum, Dan LeFevour, and Pike/Collaros.

Which is to say - mostly, voters are lazy and they picked Ingram by default. Just like they picked Beban or Crouch...