Posted:
#1
Tyrann Mathieu should win the Heisman Trophy. Just writing those words makes me cringe a little because, with all due respect to his talent, I could live without the Honey Badger.
I’m not a terribly big fan of people who give themselves nicknames and the inherent narcissism that accompanies such self-made monikers.
In fairness, I’m similarly not wild about Robert Griffin’s look-at-me infomercial after Baylor’s win last week over Texas, although it’s starting to look like a stroke of marketing genius.
Griffin told a national audience that he believed Baylor should have its first Heisman winner, and apparently ballot-holders who watched the interview were sold.
Why and how, I’m not sure. That Griffin literally became the overnight favorite for the Heisman is one of the oddest oddities in a season full of them.
First, we have to get past our biases on what the Heisman should or shouldn’t be. Ostensibly, it’s supposed to go to the most outstanding player in college football. How that is defined depends on who you talk to.
There have been some trends over the years, including the bothersome one of the Heisman essentially belonging to the pre-season media favorite unless he does something drastic to not warrant it.
Over the past few years, we’ve trended toward giving it to the best player on the best team. I’m not arguing that’s the correct approach or a perfect system, but at least we’ve started to be a little more consistent.
The last four winners -- Cam Newton, Mark Ingram, Sam Bradford and Tim Tebow – fit that mold, and it’s hard to argue with their selection. On that note, if you agree that “best player, best team” is a reasonable foundation for Heisman voting, then it has to go to Mathieu.
He has performed consistently well throughout the season, and his big plays at key times were deciding factors in games against Alabama, Arkansas and Georgia. Contests that, to varying degrees, were in doubt at least for a while for the top-ranked Tigers.
The head-to-head tiebreaker would basically eliminate Alabama running back Trent Richardson, right or wrong. But generally speaking, the timing of performances bad and good seem to have determined this Heisman vote, and that doesn’t seem right.
Stanford’s Andrew Luck, the pre-season darling, seemed to be demoted to second-tier after the Cardinal lost to Oregon. I was never in favor of him being handed the trophy as some sort of career achievement award but, in fairness, his numbers (3,185 yards, 35 TD, 9 INT) also don’t stack up to the other quarterback candidates.
Oklahoma State’s Brandon Weeden’s gaudy numbers can’t be ignored (4,328 yards, 34 TD, 12 INT), but his Heisman hopes basically were dashed when the Cowboys were upset at Iowa State.
So my question is, if one loss eliminates Luck and Weeden, for all intents and purposes, how does Griffin get let off the hook here? Sure, his numbers (3,998 passing yards, 36 TD, 6 INT, 655 rushing yards, 9 TD) and performances have been spectacular, but he also had a major hand in all three of Baylor’s losses.
His late interception cost the Bears a win against Kansas State, and a barrage of turnovers contributed to blowout losses to Texas A&M and Oklahoma State. In other words, Griffin has more poor performances (three) than Luck and Weeden combined (two).
Moreover, I believe another popular argument over who is the least expendable to his team favors Luck over Griffin.
Should the timing of two great outings by Griffin, against Oklahoma and Texas to end the regular season, be the deciding factor here for the most prestigious award in college football?
I say no and, if we’re going to be consistent, then the hardware needs to go to the Honey Badger. Ugh.
I’m not a terribly big fan of people who give themselves nicknames and the inherent narcissism that accompanies such self-made monikers.
In fairness, I’m similarly not wild about Robert Griffin’s look-at-me infomercial after Baylor’s win last week over Texas, although it’s starting to look like a stroke of marketing genius.
Griffin told a national audience that he believed Baylor should have its first Heisman winner, and apparently ballot-holders who watched the interview were sold.
Why and how, I’m not sure. That Griffin literally became the overnight favorite for the Heisman is one of the oddest oddities in a season full of them.
First, we have to get past our biases on what the Heisman should or shouldn’t be. Ostensibly, it’s supposed to go to the most outstanding player in college football. How that is defined depends on who you talk to.
There have been some trends over the years, including the bothersome one of the Heisman essentially belonging to the pre-season media favorite unless he does something drastic to not warrant it.
Over the past few years, we’ve trended toward giving it to the best player on the best team. I’m not arguing that’s the correct approach or a perfect system, but at least we’ve started to be a little more consistent.
The last four winners -- Cam Newton, Mark Ingram, Sam Bradford and Tim Tebow – fit that mold, and it’s hard to argue with their selection. On that note, if you agree that “best player, best team” is a reasonable foundation for Heisman voting, then it has to go to Mathieu.
He has performed consistently well throughout the season, and his big plays at key times were deciding factors in games against Alabama, Arkansas and Georgia. Contests that, to varying degrees, were in doubt at least for a while for the top-ranked Tigers.
The head-to-head tiebreaker would basically eliminate Alabama running back Trent Richardson, right or wrong. But generally speaking, the timing of performances bad and good seem to have determined this Heisman vote, and that doesn’t seem right.
Stanford’s Andrew Luck, the pre-season darling, seemed to be demoted to second-tier after the Cardinal lost to Oregon. I was never in favor of him being handed the trophy as some sort of career achievement award but, in fairness, his numbers (3,185 yards, 35 TD, 9 INT) also don’t stack up to the other quarterback candidates.
Oklahoma State’s Brandon Weeden’s gaudy numbers can’t be ignored (4,328 yards, 34 TD, 12 INT), but his Heisman hopes basically were dashed when the Cowboys were upset at Iowa State.
So my question is, if one loss eliminates Luck and Weeden, for all intents and purposes, how does Griffin get let off the hook here? Sure, his numbers (3,998 passing yards, 36 TD, 6 INT, 655 rushing yards, 9 TD) and performances have been spectacular, but he also had a major hand in all three of Baylor’s losses.
His late interception cost the Bears a win against Kansas State, and a barrage of turnovers contributed to blowout losses to Texas A&M and Oklahoma State. In other words, Griffin has more poor performances (three) than Luck and Weeden combined (two).
Moreover, I believe another popular argument over who is the least expendable to his team favors Luck over Griffin.
Should the timing of two great outings by Griffin, against Oklahoma and Texas to end the regular season, be the deciding factor here for the most prestigious award in college football?
I say no and, if we’re going to be consistent, then the hardware needs to go to the Honey Badger. Ugh.
0
Hot Forum Topics
