Ubben post about Heisman/Troy Davis

[tm3308]

David Ubben posted a piece about the Heisman, and what it takes for a player to win it. Troy Davis was featured pretty heavily, however not in a particularly good light. Apparently he didn't deserve the Heisman (I would agree with him for the '95 Heisman, but definitely not for '96).

Heismans don't come without wins - College Football Nation Blog - ESPN

Basically says that a player has to play for a team that also wins games. Which is true these days. But Ubben also feels that's how it should be, and I strongly disagree with that. If a player is the best in the country, he's the best in the country. Just because his teammates may not hold up their end doesn't diminish how talented/productive that one player is. I wonder if Ubben ever stopped to consider that perhaps guys like Weurffel won more games because they were playing with the likes of Ike Hilliard (first round pick, WR), Reidel Anthony (first round pick, WR), Jacquez Green (second round pick, WR), Fred Taylor (first round pick, RB), Mike Peterson (second round pick, LB), and Jevon Kearse (first round pick, LB/DE)? Guess not.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Ubben is a hack.

 

[CardinalAndGold]

That loud mouth out of Nebraska deserved the 1995 Heisman, if you ask me.

It is too bad that Davis did not finish higher in the votings, because he sure was fun to watch.

 

[cyclones500]

Team success has a major impact on "most outstanding player" status. A major contributor from a high-profile team has a huge advantage because there's an assumption that the team is great because that player is elite.

Realistically, I completely understood how Troy missed the H-Trophy because I knew ISU's record was probably going to be a deciding factor (or diminish his numbers, at least)

But:

1. He was the first RB in NCAA history to rush for 2,000 yds in consecutive seasons.
2. He did that against major conference competition.
3. He was pretty much THE offensive weapon and played on teams with bad-to-awful defenses (hence, chance of winning was even less likely).

Ubben's sentence toward the end irks me a little:

"Troy Davis didn't deserve the Heisman Trophy, and his team's lack of success is the biggest reason why."

Had he written, "Davis didn't deserve the Heisman, but his team's lack of success may be the only reason." ... that seems to make more sense.

 

[tm3308]

I can't see how he didn't deserve. I mean I know why he didn't win it, but I don't think that's right. The best players don't always play for the best teams. I think that is the biggest reason why Heisman winners flop so much in the NFL, especially these days: a lot of the guys who win aren't the best players in the country.

 

[WhatMeWorry]

Ubben has the benefit of hindsight with Troy and the fact that he didn't do anything in the NFL. I bet that put a cherry on the top of his opinion and if Troy would have been successful he wouldn't have been as hard on him.

Personally I thought Troy was going to easily win it his second year running for 2000. At least it made going to games a lot more fun to watch when we were atrocious.

 

[weR138]

Team success has a major impact on "most outstanding player" status. A major contributor from a high-profile team has a huge advantage because there's an assumption that the team is great because that player is elite.

Realistically, I completely understood how Troy missed the H-Trophy because I knew ISU's record was probably going to be a deciding factor (or diminish his numbers, at least)

But:

1. He was the first RB in NCAA history to rush for 2,000 yds in consecutive seasons.
2. He did that against major conference competition.
3. He was pretty much THE offensive weapon and played on teams with bad-to-awful defenses (hence, chance of winning was even less likely).

Ubben's sentence toward the end irks me a little:

"Troy Davis didn't deserve the Heisman Trophy, and his team's lack of success is the biggest reason why."

Had he written, "Davis didn't deserve the Heisman, but his team's lack of success may be the only reason." ... that seems to make more sense.

To me, the most outstanding player puts up ridiculous numbers vs. outstanding competition which is why it would be tough to give it to a Sun Belt player, for example. Troy was in a legit league (during NU's golden age). No one will ever convince me that Troy wasn't the most outstanding player in the nation his second season rushing for 2,000 yards. I will never agree with the lack of team success argument. The Heisman Trophy is an individual award.

 

[CyinCo]

This is why there are so many Heisman trophy winner and candidates that don't do well at the pro-level. They look good in college with the cast they have around them. They are proped up by that talent and exposed when asked to stand alone or play competition that is as good.

 

[weR138]

This is why there are so many Heisman trophy winner and candidates that don't do well at the pro-level. They look good in college with the cast they have around them. They are proped up by that talent and exposed when asked to stand alone or play competition that is as good.

To be fair, Troy wasn't a great pro but if the Heisman is going to continue be the best QB/RB on an NC contending team then they should start refering to it that way. It is not given to the most outstanding player. Suh was the most outstanding player last year.

 

[CarolinaCy]

This is why there are so many Heisman trophy winner and candidates that don't do well at the pro-level. They look good in college with the cast they have around them. They are proped up by that talent and exposed when asked to stand alone or play competition that is as good.

Matt Leinart anyone?

 

[edr247]

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I understand that good players are the ones who help their team win, but sometimes, the best player in the world can't bring up 21+ other mediocre to horrible players.

And from the Heisman's mission statement:

The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work.

I see nothing about winning championships.

I can understand players putting up big numbers against weak competition. I can understand winning as the slight 'tie-breaker' in a close race. But to make this trophy about the most popular offensive player on the most popular team at the end of the year is just wrong.

Also, to look back and say that players who didn't do well in the pros don't deserve the Heisman is equally stupid. The award is for what a person does while playing college football. If a Heisman trophy winner decides he wants to become a plumber after college, that shouldn't have any bearing on his achievements on the field.

 

[cyclones500]

I can understand winning as the slight 'tie-breaker' in a close race. But to make this trophy about the most popular offensive player on the most popular team at the end of the year is just wrong.

Ubben does admit, "The Heisman is flawed. Few would argue that." (Then proceeds to legitimize the flaw, pretty much, with his argument). Maybe it's time for a new award. It could be what the Heisman is supposed to be, and the Heisman can represent whatever the heck it supposedly represents.

It would make more sense to re-focus the Heisman to its supposed definition, and create a Media Frenzy on Dominant Team award, but ... eh.

Something else probably factored into Davis getting the shaft: playing for a program that was mired in 15 years of middling-to-awful seasons, with few periods of success, ever. I wonder if someone at that time rushed for 2K, twice, and played on 3-9 teams at Miami, Nebraska or Michigan — I'm thinking they might leap-frog a QB star on an 11-1 team.

Tell me if I'm all wet on that one.

 

[edr247]

Ubben does admit, "The Heisman is flawed. Few would argue that." (Then proceeds to legitimize the flaw, pretty much, with his argument). Maybe it's time for a new award. It could be what the Heisman is supposed to be, and the Heisman can represent whatever the heck it supposedly represents.

It would make more sense to re-focus the Heisman to its supposed definition, and create a Media Frenzy on Dominant Team award, but ... eh.

Something else probably factored into Davis getting the shaft: playing for a program that was mired in 15 years of middling-to-awful seasons, with few periods of success, ever. I wonder if someone at that time rushed for 2K, twice, and played on 3-9 teams at Miami, Nebraska or Michigan — I'm thinking they might leap-frog a QB star on an 11-1 team.

Tell me if I'm all wet on that one.

Nope, you certainly have a point. If a Hurricane, Cornhusker or Wolverine put up consecutive 2000 yard seasons, they would most likely jump ahead of a QB on an 11-1 team. However, I also think that teams like Miami, etc would probably win a lot of games with such players. No guarantee, of course, but the level of talent the 'big boys' bring each year would probably benefit greatly from such a player. But the gist of the argument is correct.

"Big Name" teams will have easier time getting Heisman candidates out than the "Small Time" teams.

 

[CarolinaCy]

But it's not even enough to put up big numbers on a winning team. Plenty of TTech QBs have put up huge numbers on 8 and 9-win teams, and not gotten a sniff of the Heisman vote. At this point it's basically "the best RB or QB on a top 10 team".

Since 1990, all but 3 winners are from what I would consider "top historical programs" (starting with 2009 winner):

Alabama
Oklahoma
Florida
Ohio State
USC
USC
Oklahoma
USC
Nebraska
Florida State
Wisconsin
Texas
Michigan
Florida
Ohio State
Colorado
Florida State
Miami
Michigan
BYU

 

[jdoggivjc]

But it's not even enough to put up big numbers on a winning team. Plenty of TTech QBs have put up huge numbers on 8 and 9-win teams, and not gotten a sniff of the Heisman vote. At this point it's basically "the best RB or QB on a top 10 team".

The only flaw with your argument is that voters snub TT QBs for the Heisman because they say if those QBs were placed in something other than the spread they wouldn't rack up the mind-blowing numbers that they did (and in essence, they are correct). Don't mind the fact that Tebow also played in a spread in Florida and that didn't stop him from winning one and almost winning two Heismans...

 

[edr247]

It would be interesting to look at the finalists, and not just the winners, as well as how close the votes were.

 

[CarolinaCy]

The only flaw with your argument is that voters snub TT QBs for the Heisman because they say if those QBs were placed in something other than the spread they wouldn't rack up the mind-blowing numbers that they did (and in essence, they are correct). Don't mind the fact that Tebow also played in a spread in Florida and that didn't stop him from winning one and almost winning two Heismans...

Agreed. Those guys are always a "product of the system." Yet when a QB for an historically top 10 team is putting up video game numbers (Sam Bradford, Matt Leinart), they are just playing up to their abilities.

 

[CarolinaCy]

It would be interesting to look at the finalists, and not just the winners, as well as how close the votes were.

Here you go:

Heisman Voting Results, 1935-2005, Heisman Trophy Award, Manlyweb.com

 

[cygrads]

So by this logic if the current Mich QB kept putting up these numbers and Mich went 6-6 or 7-5 he doesn't deserve the Heisman - what a crock!

 

[jdoggivjc]

Agreed. Those guys are always a "product of the system." Yet when a QB for an historically top 10 team is putting up video game numbers (Sam Bradford, Matt Leinart), they are just playing up to their abilities.

That being said, I'd have a very hard time arguing that Sam Bradford didn't deserve his Heisman Trophy. One of the least arguable ones in a while IMO.