This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yeah, Boise St.'s numbers will look good in comparison due in large part I'd guess to their schedule, but did you factor in the fact that they've only been in D-1 since 1996? They were a JC until 1967. Still, their ascent to an excellent program has been astonishing.Thanks for all the number crunching. This actually looks pretty good to me (both versions).
We're ahead of Tennessee!!!! Yes, this is the secret formula!!!
Ok....Bentley added your criteria...see post #516. Now what?
It was a general statement, about not only Bentley's ranking (thanks for updating btw) but all rankings I've ever seen for the most part. I agree with TOW that individual accomplishments should not be as important as team accomplishments. And to give a coach award no credit, when that probably says more about the program's performance than how the heisman winner did, doesn't make sense.
Ok, he added it. Feel better? I really don't know what you are getting at here...sorry
"Accomplishments" is such a vague term, it's hard to understand the point you are trying to make.
I guess NCAA infractions weren't given much weight...or were possibly considered a good thing.
that's what I was thinking! First list with infractions listed and Miami jumps to 11 and Penn State drops to 12?
Pardon my public stupidity. But my point is that "Individual" accomplishments should include players and coaches, since both reflect success of a program. I would include neither or both, and would give each the same weight.Ok, he added it. Feel better? I really don't know what you are getting at here...sorry"Accomplishments" is such a vague term, it's hard to understand the point you are trying to make.
It's a decent points. Team accomplishments still have a great % of the overall score in my "system" even if we include the coaching award.The Heisman is an interesting one though. For the first part of its existence it was an individual award. For the last 25 years, it's pretty much been a team award.Pardon my public stupidity. But my point is that "Individual" accomplishments should include players and coaches, since both reflect success of a program. I would include neither or both, and would give each the same weight.Ok, he added it. Feel better? I really don't know what you are getting at here...sorry"Accomplishments" is such a vague term, it's hard to understand the point you are trying to make.
Bentley did that. We good now?? See post 516 for the updated rankings.Pardon my public stupidity. But my point is that "Individual" accomplishments should include players and coaches, since both reflect success of a program. I would include neither or both, and would give each the same weight.Ok, he added it. Feel better? I really don't know what you are getting at here...sorry
i think he was good a while ago and he already thanked bentley. no need to be an ###.Bentley did that. We good now?? See post 516 for the updated rankings.Pardon my public stupidity. But my point is that "Individual" accomplishments should include players and coaches, since both reflect success of a program. I would include neither or both, and would give each the same weight.Ok, he added it. Feel better? I really don't know what you are getting at here...sorry"Accomplishments" is such a vague term, it's hard to understand the point you are trying to make.
I agree..there should be some weight on those ind. awards...as political as it is, the Heisman carries plenty of history and prestige with it. I guess I'm just a brainwashed UA fan...you scoff at an award until you have oneIt's a decent points. Team accomplishments still have a great % of the overall score in my "system" even if we include the coaching award.The Heisman is an interesting one though. For the first part of its existence it was an individual award. For the last 25 years, it's pretty much been a team award.Pardon my public stupidity. But my point is that "Individual" accomplishments should include players and coaches, since both reflect success of a program. I would include neither or both, and would give each the same weight.Ok, he added it. Feel better? I really don't know what you are getting at here...sorry"Accomplishments" is such a vague term, it's hard to understand the point you are trying to make.
Give Julio another year and I'll be 100% with you.Bentley - What about another category that awards teams for very good years...not great? Awarding programs for being a top program even thru years they don't win a controversial MNC or Heisman? 10-win seasons, top-10 rankings at EOY, etc.
When it has come to Alabama competing in a "Popularity Contest" - ala 1966 and 1977, we hav enot fared wellBut you are perfectly fine with putting so much weight on "championships" that are just as skewed if not moreso by the media?? Do you really need to see more evidence of the "polls" being nothing more than a popularity contest?
This is an outstanding argument.In College Football and Basketball, successful Coaches, much moreso than Heisman winners or any player (except Tebow) become the face of the Program over time.
And that will change quickly after he leaves and Florida keeps winning.Carroll is USC
It all come down to recruiting. Neuheisel's done better so far than Dorrell, but we are still being out recruited by not only USC (to be expected, of course) but by Cal and even by Stanford.
What about during the 60's, when you had the great QBs? (Stabler, Broadway Joe). I don't know what their numbers were, but weren't they considered? 'Also, Oklahoma ran a wishbone yet had a number of running backs that were considered for the Heisman, didn't they?
Billy Sims won the Heisman in 78 and was runner up in 79. Greg Pruitt was runner up in 72 and third in 71. Joe Washington was third in 74 & 75.
Thank you. Sims and Pruitt were the ones I was thinking of. Didn't Pruitt have the best yards per carry ever?
In a season. 9.41 in 71.
I saw the merit in that and adjusted. Moved you guys ahead of Tennessee (despite my obvious pro-Volunteer agenda) but stayed at #8 all time.
I understand it's still early in RR tenure at UM, but my gut is leaning "no" here. I will always think of Bo as the face of UM football, no matter who the coach is.
He's pretty imposing. But then again, so were Bud Wilkinson and Barry Switzer. Similar thing with Woody Hayes and Bear Bryant. If not Rodriguez, someone else may come along to at least merit being mentioned alongside Bo.
Agreed....and I also think part of it is generational as well. The folks in a program when I wasn't even born don't have much of an impact on me as those who were around while I am a fan. That's not to say I don't appreciate them or dismiss their cotributions to the organization. Not sure why, but I have always found it kind of weird when people druel all over historic figures of a program when they weren't even around to appreciate it in person. If I am being honest, most of my admiration for Bo comes from his off the field days after he was done coaching. I am a bit young to appreciate Bo as a coach. I can watch video and remember games from late in his career, but the memories are incomplete.
I know nothing of Wilkinson except what I've read. But I was on campus when Switzer was there (Billy Tubbs as well, that was quite a duo). Unfortunately, missed the 85 NC by one year.
A) Oh, so does Alabama have 5 seasons in which they were undefeated and did not even share a MNC?B) Woodson deserved the Heisman. You Southern boys need to get over that.When it has come to Alabama competing in a "Popularity Contest" - ala 1966 and 1977, we hav enot fared wellBut you are perfectly fine with putting so much weight on "championships" that are just as skewed if not moreso by the media?? Do you really need to see more evidence of the "polls" being nothing more than a popularity contest?
This could be a whole other thread, but no one will ever convince me of that. Here's why:1) Wuerffel won the year prior by a landslide. Manning had better numbers across the board, other than rating I believe.2) Champ Bailey had as good or better offensive and defensive numbers than Woodson, and didn't even sniff it.3) Woodson had the big TD vs OSU, but also was burned for a 50+ yard TD right? There have been quite a few great college corners who where never burned deep...let alone in the the big game vs the arch rival.I hated Manning...but haven't given any credence to the Heisman since then. IMO 'they' decided it was time to vote a defensive player in and had had enough of the Mannings.
PSU has been shafted...the funny thing is, in '94 both undefeated PSU and Alabama would have been shafted had Alabama beaten UF in the SECC.
Eh, I don't want to derail a great thread. But it's not a career award, or shouldn't be. I agree he deserved it more than Wuerffel. I don't remember Baily making as many game changing plays as Woodson did that year. And finally, yes he did get burned. But it wasn't just the OSU game. That was just the cherry on top. He made great plays all season and really led the team to victories from a position (or positions) that you don't really see that. I'm sure that some voters saw a chance to give it to a defensive player, but the overriding fact is that Manning just did NOT have that great of a year. And it's not like UT went undefeated or something. He lost to his biggest rival for the 4th straight year while Woodson helped beat his biggest rival. Anyway, thanks for your opinion.
Isn't UT supposedly your "arch nemesis"? Why would you feel the need to defend one of them? FWIW...it was about 2-3 years before this that I began to believe the Heisman was just another popularity contest unfortunately. The event has gone down hill since this point in history IMO. With that said, you justifying Manning's position by one play where Woodson got burned?? He had an entire career at UM that was pretty good. I'd be interested in how you compare the "numbers" of each player given that they played two completely different positions on opposite sides of the ball. What numbers intersected between the two that you can say Manning's were "better"?
Yeah, the voters had decided long before to give it to poor ol Tom because of that failed 2 point conversion against Miami.
UT did have a chance to win the MNC though...but lost to NU in the Orange (and Manning had the bursa sac injury).His senior season, he won the MVP in the SECC (4 TDs and 2 TD comeback), Maxwell, O'Brien, and Unitas awards..and the "Best Player" award at the ESPYs (whatever that is).Tough to find stats, but this is a basic comparison between Manning and Weurffel:Manning '07 = 3,819 yards, 36 TDs, 9 INTWeurffel '96 = 3,625 yards, 39 TDs, 13 INTI just find it hard to pick someone more valuable than a QB in general.
Apparently you and I don't speak the same language. I compared Manning to Weurffel and Woodson to Bailey.
Misread...apologies
Misread...apologies
For a while I thought you were still holding the Dwayne Rudd 95-yd INT return of Griese against me.
But that's the whole problem! It shouldn't just be the best QB among the top 2 or 3 teams every year. That's stupid. Just make a QB Heisman award or something.UT did have a chance to win the MNC though...but lost to NU in the Orange (and Manning had the bursa sac injury).His senior season, he won the MVP in the SECC (4 TDs and 2 TD comeback), Maxwell, O'Brien, and Unitas awards..and the "Best Player" award at the ESPYs (whatever that is).Tough to find stats, but this is a basic comparison between Manning and Weurffel:Manning '07 = 3,819 yards, 36 TDs, 9 INTWeurffel '96 = 3,625 yards, 39 TDs, 13 INTI just find it hard to pick someone more valuable than a QB in general.
Good point. But IMO Manning was the best college QB I'd seen in a long time. Weurffel was obviously a product of the system, as were guys like Ware and Toretta. If any of those 4 should have won...it was Manning.In fact, that Toretta over Faulk vote was actually what originally soured me on the Heisman.But that's the whole problem! It shouldn't just be the best QB among the top 2 or 3 teams every year. That's stupid. Just make a QB Heisman award or something.UT did have a chance to win the MNC though...but lost to NU in the Orange (and Manning had the bursa sac injury).His senior season, he won the MVP in the SECC (4 TDs and 2 TD comeback), Maxwell, O'Brien, and Unitas awards..and the "Best Player" award at the ESPYs (whatever that is).Tough to find stats, but this is a basic comparison between Manning and Weurffel:Manning '07 = 3,819 yards, 36 TDs, 9 INTWeurffel '96 = 3,625 yards, 39 TDs, 13 INTI just find it hard to pick someone more valuable than a QB in general.
Agree on all counts. But the trophy would have been more of a joke, IMHO, if they tried to right the wrong of Wuerffel over Manning by giving it to Manning the next year when he didn't deserve it as much as Woodson did. Those are the breaks. They need to stop the Wuerffel mistakes, but not by making more mistakes.Good point. But IMO Manning was the best college QB I'd seen in a long time. Weurffel was obviously a product of the system, as were guys like Ware and Toretta. If any of those 4 should have won...it was Manning.In fact, that Toretta over Faulk vote was actually what originally soured me on the Heisman.But that's the whole problem! It shouldn't just be the best QB among the top 2 or 3 teams every year. That's stupid. Just make a QB Heisman award or something.UT did have a chance to win the MNC though...but lost to NU in the Orange (and Manning had the bursa sac injury).His senior season, he won the MVP in the SECC (4 TDs and 2 TD comeback), Maxwell, O'Brien, and Unitas awards..and the "Best Player" award at the ESPYs (whatever that is).Tough to find stats, but this is a basic comparison between Manning and Weurffel:Manning '07 = 3,819 yards, 36 TDs, 9 INTWeurffel '96 = 3,625 yards, 39 TDs, 13 INTI just find it hard to pick someone more valuable than a QB in general.
I believe it was 87 yards
It was when Ron Dayne beat out Joe Hamilton his senior year
Huh?Neuheisel's been more or less responsible for two classes now:
