Necessary Roughness

Earlier this evening in New York City, Mark Ingram of the University of Alabama was awarded the Heisman Trophy for being the best collegiate football player in America. I give him props, but I respectfully disagree with the win. I don’t believe he was the best running back in the country, let alone the best overall player. To be sure, he is a very talented player on a great team; but based on his statistics and what I’ve seen from him this season, I can’t call him the best player in the nation.

The Heisman trophy has always suffered from legitimacy issues due to regional bias, out-of-touch Heisman voters, priority of team records over player stats, and other political nonsense. In the case of Ingram, the latter two biases were definitely in effect.

The fact that he was on an undefeated team played a huge role in his consideration over other running backs with better stats but on teams with worse records. But more importantly, from the midpoint of the season, everyone in the media kept talking about how no one from Alabama had ever won the Heisman, thus crowning him as the great hope to win the award. Every game was about how this “storied program” has never had a Heisman winner. I believe this pervasive line of logic swayed votes, a way of further boosting the legacy of the Alabama Crimson Tide program.

There was also a lot of talk about how the winner this year would most likely NOT be a quarterback, regardless of how good they played. Since 2000, a QB had won every year, except in 2005 when Reggie Bush of USC won the trophy (and he could have very easily lost to another quarterback in Vince Young of Texas). The voters were somewhat tired of quarterbacks winning the award, so it was almost a given that a player of another position would win this year.

By no means do I intend to diminish Mark Ingram’s achievements, but rather point out the flaws of the Heisman balloting. The voting is so political and subjective that it pretty much guarantees the best players will have a difficult time getting nominated, let alone win.

This is why I place higher priority on the position awards, such as the Biletnikoff Trophy (best wide receiver), the Jim Thorpe Award (best defensive back), the Doak Walker Award (best running back) and the AP Player of the Year. Interestingly enough, of the five Heisman candidates this year, Mark Ingram is the only one to not win a position award.

So who would I have voted for? Although I’ve been on the Colt McCoy bandwagon for two seasons, I can’t overlook Ndamukong Suh of University of Nebraska. This guy was not only the best college player in the nation, but he’s the only one in this group who I am also 100% positive will have an exceptional career ahead of him. The rest of the guys may or may not become good NFL players, but barring injury, Suh is a guaranteed franchise player. Colt McCoy would get my No. 2 vote and Toby Gerhardt would be my No. 3.

Question: If you had a Heisman ballot, who would you have picked?


Currently in Rotation: Samba

Seu Jorge – Life on Mars
Taken from the album: The Life Aquatic Studio Sessions