Mark Ingram of Alabama won the Heisman Trophy over the weekend, becoming the first player from the Crimson Tide to take home the award. He won in the closest vote in history, edging out Stanford RB Toby Gerhart by 28 points. Now comes the second-guessing of not only the decision but the process itself.
Against tougher competition, Gerhart gained more yards and scored more touchdowns than Ingram. So we’re left wondering how the decisions were made by the voters. Was it because Alabama had a better record than Stanford? Maybe. But chances are it was the same-old East Coast bias we see over and over again in poll after poll. Take this Heisman voter’s admission as just one example:
The reason that I voted for Ingram, Tebow and McCoy was because I saw them play the most. I never saw Gerhart play an entire game (we work all day Saturday and Saturday night) and only saw a few minutes of Suh’s game against Texas. I refused to vote for somebody based on highlights. And I think you have to represent your part of the country; in fact, there used to be fine print on the paper ballots that instructed balloters to vote “with regard to your region.” However, I think it’s wrong to leave a player off your ballot completely just to help a player from your region, as apparently the case with some Big 12 voters on Tebow year. So I, too, an still unhappy about that injustice.
It’s kind of a joke. Sorry, not “kind of”…It is a joke. Yet still another example of how college football is screwed up. The pollsters don’t vote for West Coast teams because they choose not to watch the games, and this idiot Heisman voter doesn’t know what a DVR is.
I’m not saying Gerhart should have won. That’s whom I would have voted for, and Suh would have been my second-place vote. But that’s me. What I’m saying is that the Heisman trophy this year is a joke because the time zone the winner played in turned out to be, for some voters, as important a factor as his performance on the field. I didn’t watch the Heisman ceremony because I knew it would be the same outcome as the BCS bullshit. Oh college football, how i miss thee!
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 5:54 PM
I think this factor is more important. From an AP article: “Voters can submit ballots with 2 weeks left in the season, a tradition that goes back years and one that should probably be changed since so many teams now play into December. McCoy was the leader on the early ballots, with a comfortable margin over Ingram. Gerhart and Florida quarterback Tim Tebow were neck-and-neck and Suh had not received a vote.”
The games played in the last 2 weeks probably would have changed some minds.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Just b/t Ingram & Gerhart, I think Gerhart was more worthy of the Heisman. Robert Smith pointed out that Gerhart faced much tougher competition, something like 5 Top 40 defenses vs. just 1 for Ingram.
However, since my team is playing Bama, I’m hoping the Heisman Curse holds true to form. It certainly did the last time Texas played in Pasadena.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 6:50 PM
If you’re lucky enough to be part of the voting process for the Heisman Trophy, then you have the RESPONSIBILITY to expand your horizons and watch games involving key players up for the award. Failure to do so provides a terrible injustice to the whole system.
I know it’s difficult – I have a heavy workload on my plate as well – but it’s definitely possible. As a voting member of the CIS (Canadian University) Football Rankings, I make a point to read up on as much CIS Football as possible and watch as many games as I can to help make an informed decision.
Given the prestige surrounding the Heisman Trophy, I expect much more respect than what’s being shown by some of the voters.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 7:06 PM
East coast bias? In the previous 20 years, you’ve had 3 winners from USC, 2 from Oklahoma, Ohio State and Michigan, and 1 each from BYU, Nebraska, Houston, Colorado, Texas and Wisconsin. The “east” winners are from Florida, Florida State, Miami. Hardly an obvous east coast bias. More like a top ranked, playing in the BCS title game bias.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 10:15 PM
toby wuz robbed!
Ingram is the least deserving winner EVER. this was east coast bias, plain and simple. Gerhart should have ran away with it, but even McCoy and Suh would have been more deserving. why was Tebow even invited? his vote total was closer to 6th place than Suh’s 4th place! this was just a disgusting SEC lovefest all-around.
the Pac-10 bears some responsibility for this travesty as well. why didn’t they campaign independently for Gerhart? the lack of a championship game doesn’t help either ok Stanford may not have been in it this year but why don’t they just add BYU and Utah and go Pac-12 already? that would strengthen the western voting bloc in Utah and also Nevada, where many fans of those schools live. not to mention what it would do to help the Pac-10 in the BCS….
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 10:42 PM
SEC lovefest? Then why doesn’t Peyton Manning have a Heisman? He was “robbed” much more than any of the finalists who lost to Ingram. The SEC is without doubt the toughest conference in NCAA football at this time. If you don’t think so, then look at the SEC’s record against ranked non-conference opponents (Va Tech, Ga Tech, etc.). None of this year’s finalists was a run away “should have won”, as Manning was the year he lost. It ultimately came down to the last couple of games, as noted above. Ingram ran all over Florida like noboby else has in the past two years, and Colt nearly lost the game to Nebraska (thanks official for putting that winning second back on the clock). If Gerhart should have “run away with it”, then he probably would have. It was just one of those years where it was very close, and pretty much a toss-up among the top four.
And God Cyd! What is with you these days? You can’t seem to write much of anything without being a total bitch. Get some Klonopin, how about it!
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I agree with the winner just fine and I loved the emotion he showed in his acceptance speech.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Ditto, mdterp! Also, I am NOT a ‘Bama fan and was quietly hoping for Toby to win but I thought the voters got it right as evidenced by the close voting. I even thought Suh got the recognition he deserved.
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 3:07 AM
This is one of the stupidest and least informed articles that I have ever read (and I’ve read some dumb articles in my day). Cyd before you write another article, please take 15 minutes or so and research your topic instead of attempting to pass off your uninformed opinion as fact. Your baseless assertion that Gerhart faced “tougher competition” than Ingram is total bullshit. I, unlike you, actually did some research on this issue and here’s what I found on the NCAA’s website (which contains the official 2009 FBS season statistical breakdown). Of the 13 games that Mark Ingram played in, 6 of those games were against teams ranked in the top 30 defensively. Those teams, along with their defensive national rankings in parentheses, are as follows:
Florida (2), Virginia Tech (14), South Carolina (15), Tennessee (16), Mississippi (24) and LSU (28). Gerhart on the otherhand faced only 2 teams whose defenses were ranked in the top 30 nationally. Those teams were Arizona State (12) and Arizona (21). Please explain to me how is it that Gerhart faced “tougher competition” than Ingram, when Ingram faced 6 top 30 defenses, while Gerhart faced 2? Your statement reminds me of something that the late NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.” Cyd you need to do better. Moreover, Gerhart accumulated his rushing yards with 311 carries. Ingram on the otherhand accumulated his with 249 carries. For those of you doing the math, Gerhart had 62 more carries than Ingram. Lastly, Ingram played sparingly in several of Alabama’s games, due to big leads that Alabama had. Gerhart on the otherhand played heavily in all of Stanford’s games, avergaring 26 carries a game. Ingram on the otherhand averaged 19 carries a game. If Nick Saban had used Ingram more heavily, Ingram would have easily rushed for 2,000 yards. One final note, the worst defensive team in the FBS, was Pac 10 member Washington State, a team that Standford and Gerhart played against. Washington State ranked dead last; 120/120. Now again tell me just how tough the Pac 10 was!
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 3:40 AM
One additional fact now that I’m on a roll. Alabama was the only team in the FBS during the 2009 season to play and beat 2 teams that were ranked in the top 5 nationally. Alabama defeated Virginia Tech to open the 2009 season when Tech was ranked #5. Alabama later defeated #1 ranked Florida in the same bldg. (the Georgia Dome). Ingram had big games against both teams, rushing for 150 yards and 2 touchdowns (1 receiving) against Tech and rushed for 113 yards and 3 touchdowns against #1 ranked Florida. Please tell me how many top 5 teams Standford and Gerhard faced during the 2009 season and how many top 5 teams Stanford beat?
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 4:13 AM
hey respersis you genius, did you bother to take a look at the stats for RUSHING defense? cuz, you know, they are both RUNNING BACKS!
Each faced 1 Top 20 run defense on their schedule, Ingram avgd 4.0 yards per carry in that game, Gerhart 4.6
As far as Top 25 run defenses, Ingram only played against 1, Gerhart against 3, and he avrgd 4.6 against those three top 25 run defenses. the total run defenses Ingram went against avrgd 67th in the nation, the run defenses that Gerhart played against averaged 59th in the nation. Lastly, Ingram had 119 yards per game, Gerhart had 145.
Yes Ingram was on TV for that SEC title game, that’s the only reason he pulled it out, even if he did pull a 30 yd. stinker against Alabama’s greatest rival, Auburn, the week before. The lazy-ass east coast voters didn’t happen to catch Toby’s 126 yd, 4 TD performance against Cal, Stanford’s biggest rival, I suppose.
One last thing: Ingram had the least yards per game by a Heisman-winning RB since Archie Griffin. Pathetic.
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 9:13 AM
You think it’s a flawed system? DUH!
First off, it’s a subjective vote. So it’s doomed right there. Moreover, there are over 100 FBS teams in college football with players eligible to win the Heisman. It’s clearly impossible for one person/voter to watch all the games of all the top 15-20 candidates from the beginning of the season to the end.
And East Coast bias? 6 of the last 9 Heisman winners are from west of the Mississippi. You are so lost it’s scary. GET A CLUE!!
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 1:23 PM
“the Pac-10 bears some responsibility for this travesty as well. why didn’t they campaign independently for Gerhart?”
A true gentleman, Gerhart asked Stanford to NOT run a campaign for him. They were going to start one back in September but he asked them not to. He wanted his performance to speak for itself.
A shame.
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Resipsa, thanks for the chuckle. As Druggybear said, you’re the one with the whack stats.
As DruggyBear said, Gerhart faced 5 of the top 40 rush defenses and averaged 140 yards and totaled 12 TDs against those teams.
How many did Ingram face? 1.
Stanford didn’t beat any teams in the Top 5 when they played them because they didn’t get to PLAY any teams in the Top 5 because of the East Coast bias. However, Stanford did play 8 of its games against teams at one point ranked in the top 25.
Arguments can be made for Ingram; I didn’t say they couldn’t. But the fact that a PAID campaign by his school and the side of the country he plays on played big factors in his win. And that’s a shame.
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Just in case anybody cares:
Ingram didn’t even lead his conference in rushing.
http://www.secsports.com/sport_stats/football/confldrs.htm#conf.wi2
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Druggy Bear,
First, my comments were not directed at you, but at Cyd. However since you felt so compelled to respond, you should atleast learn how to read before doing so. My quarrel with Cyd was based on his uninformed opinion, which he tried to pass off as fact. While you and Cyd may disagree with the stats that I cited, atleast I cited facts to support my position and did not try to bullshit my way to proving my point. Moreover, what you failed to mention is that when you look at the actual rushing yards per game given up by SEC defenses as opposed to PAC 10 defenses, they’re statistically insignificant. Any statistician with half a brain would tell you that. Additionally, it would stand to reason that SEC defensive rushing stats would be higher re: yards per game than PAC 10 stats, as the SEC is a much more run oriented conference. As evidence of that fact, each SEC team averaged 466 carries during the 2009 season. On the otherhand, each PAC 10 team averaged 420 carries, which is a difference of 46 fewer carries per team. That is a significant statistical difference and any statistician will tell you that! Lastly, this whole bullshit argument about “east coast bias” is just that . . . bullshit! Not because there isn’t any vaildity to it, as I believe there is some bias. My argument however is with the position that folks on the west coast are some how “unbiased.” I live in LA and I can tell you first hand that the bias for west coast sports teams, professional and amateur, is just as strong on the west coast as it is anywhere else in America. I have often marveled that people in LA act as if college football was invented at USC! So let’s stop all the “cry baby wining” about east coast bias, when west coast bias is just as strong. Take a look at the breakdown for the Heisman by west coast sports writers. Gerhart – 319, McCoy – 214 and Ingram – 153. No bias there I guess, even when you consider that the far west had the most lopsided vote of any of the 6 regions. In fact, the lopsided vote in the far west was the only reason that the overall vote totals were as close as they were! Additionally, how biased could the overall vote have been when Ingram won 4 of the 6 regions. If Gerhart had won 4 of the 6 regions, but still lost the overall vote due to lopsided voting in the South or east, then there would be a valid arugment re: bias. It’s hard to make that argument with any credibility when Ingram won 4 out of the 6 regions and the only region that Gerhart won was the region where he played. Same for Suh. And lastly, The last 10 years of Heisman trophy winners has been about as balanced as you can get. From 2000 through the 2009 award, the South has had 3 winners, the Far West has had 3 winners, the South West has had 3 winners, the Mid West has had 1 winner and the East 0 winners. As such, if any region can claim bias, it would clearly be the Mid West and the East, not the Far West which is tied with the South and South West for most winners over this 10 year period. Moreover the notion that Ingram’s win is tainted because he won based on his performance in a late season game and because he plays for a highly ranked team is garbage. Every winner over the past 10 years fits that description. Sam Bradford in 2008, Tim Tebow in 2007, Troy Smith in 2006, Reggie Bush in 2005, Matt Leinart in 2004, Jason White in 2003 . . . . . . The list goes on. If Ingram won the Heisman based on his late season performance and because he plays for a national championship contender, then so did every winner in the past 10 years! Don’t try to use different criteria for Ingram that you didn’t use for all of the other winners, as they all won under similar circumstances.
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Bob,
Ingram did lead the SEC in rushing with 1,542 yards. The next closest rusher in the SEC was Anthony Dixon with 1,391. Since when is 1,391 greater than 1,542? Yes, Dixon’s yards per game average was greater, but his total yardage was not. Lastly, Alabama was not trying to win a Heisman this year, but was trying to win a national championship. If Nick Saban was trying to win the Heisman for Ingram, he would have played him a lot more than he did. There were several games this year where Ingram played sparingly once Alabama had a big lead. If Alabama was trying to win the Heisman for Ingram, they would have left him in and let him pile up meaningless statistics. There was no concerted effort to win the Heisman for Ingram. He won it because those that voted thought he was the best football player in America this year. Maybe not the best by a lot, but the best nonetheless!
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 3:51 PM
“the SEC is a much more run oriented conference. As evidence of that fact, each SEC team averaged 466 carries during the 2009 season. On the otherhand, each PAC 10 team averaged 420 carries, which is a difference of 46 fewer carries per team.”
huh? ok, so the SEC runs so much more than the Pac-10, that explains why Ingram had way more rushing yards and TD’s than Gerhart errrr wait a second, it’s the other way around of course! Gerhart had far more rushing yards and TD’s against better RUSHING defenses than Ingram faced, period.
and did Alabama have a big lead against Auburn? Is that why Ingram was benched against Auburn’s horrible rushing defense which ranked 80 out of 104 allowing 161.67 yards per game?
and did it ever occur to you that the Far West was so impressed w/ Gerhart because we actually WATCHED his games out here in addition to Alabama’s nationally televised games? because if you saw both like we did there would be no debate as to who the best was.
Sorry I intruded on your debate w/ Cyd, he and I aren’t exactly pals but what can I say, when he’s right he’s right. All in all, at least the Doak Walker Award went to the right guy…….
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Guys, you’re all getting carried away with what is basically a foolish argument. Ingram is certainly a deserving winner. If Gerhart had won (and I for one would have voted for him), no one could have made a reasonable argument against him also being a deserving winner.
You’re splitting hairs with all the statistical analysis. Both had great years in top conferences against legimate opposition.
In a contest with approximately 900 ballots submitted, there was only a five vote difference between the two players in first place votes. That’s less than a 1% difference that says it was basically a toss up and either player could’ve easily won.
To even hint that either Ingram or Gerhart was not worthy of the Heisman shows little understanding of the game and the players.
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 7:31 PM
I have read some football people who say the Nebraska lineman was clearly the best player in the nation, but the Heisman is really for best “offensive player.” I have no quibble with Ingram nor would I have had with Gerhart. The latter was hurt by his almost zero lack of national exposure, and Ingram helped by shining on a national stage a week after Gerhart’s season ended.
on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:09 AM
@Mike – well said.
on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:46 AM
His team is undefeated and defeated the #1 team in the country, which also had the #1 defense in the country. Toby’s team lost to Wake Forest…
on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:11 AM
help me out here True, when did the Heisman become a team award? it’s supposed to go to the best player in the country and that was Toby this year, by far.
“To even hint that either Ingram or Gerhart was not worthy of the Heisman shows little understanding of the game and the players.”
oh shit then, debate over! LET IT BE WRITTEN Mike is the authority on football everybody! anyone who thinks differently than him needs to STFU and bow to him!
on Dec 16th, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Thanks Druggy. I agree –
on Dec 16th, 2009 at 3:07 PM
man I got steamed, guess I need Klonopin too
on Dec 17th, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Unfortunately, team records have played into Heisman voting for years. ESPN even highlighted a statistical analysis showing this. I can’t quibble with the results, although I would have been fine with either Gerhart or Suh winning. The proof of the decency of the votiing was Tebow’s fifth-place finish. He simply was not in the same class this year with the other finalists.
on Dec 17th, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Best post on this thread goes to Mike (post #19)