A lot of you said the Heisman isnt that important, I'm like you, a national championship is a lot better. One thing about the Heisman, the best high school QBs in the country are giving OU a look where they weren't a couple of years ago. The Heisman may not be the best reward at the end of a season, but it's not nothing.
Good Luck the rest of the way.
"Nothing", no?
But have the voters themselves made it an absolute joke?
Yes.
Their arbitrary standards based upon "plays for a blue blood" strikes a lot of us as an amusing joke.
I've said for years that the Heisman voters basically follow the logic below:
1) can we give it to someone who plays for Notre Dame?
2) can we give it to a USC tailback?
3) can we give it to someone who plays for Oklahoma?
In 2002, Carson Palmer won the Heisman Trophy.
Here is his stat line:
309 of 489 for 3942 yards, 33 TD, 10 INT
Meanwhile, a Big 12 QB had the following stat line:
479 of 712 for 5017 yards, 45 TDs, 13 INT
That's Kliff Kingsbury. So what I'm supposed to believe is that a guy who passes for 1100 more yards, has a better passing completion pct and throws for 12 more TDs is NOT AS GOOD a player as a guy who has the lesser numbers.
Kingsbury finished ninth and got six first-place votes. But if he had played for Oklahoma, he'd have won the Heisman.
Of course, the next objection is, "But team record blah blah." Well then how did Paul Hornung win it on a losing team? "Oh, he set a record for something something".
No, he got it because he played for Notre Dame, pure and simple.
In 2002, Palmer not only didn't lead the nation in passing yards, he didn't even lead his conference despite finishing fifth in the nation in passing yards. Timmy Chang of Hawaii threw for more yards but nobody saw Hawaii play and besides, they're Hawaii, right?
Jason White won it in 2003 with numbers substantially inferior to BJ Symmons (again at Texas Tech). Symmons had a better percentage passing and (wait for it) almost TWO THOUSAND MORE YARDS passing as well as 12 more TDs on a "not as good as OU" team (which, of course, makes hi the bigger contributor).
Jason White got consideration because he played for Oklahoma; BJ Symmons did not get consideration because he played for Texas Tech. (The real best player in the country, however, was Larry Fitzgerald, but I at least understand this one).
So what has happened lately. You have a guy who LEFT THE SEC because he wasn't good enough, he goes to Oklahoma and - voila! - runs up a bunch of great numbers against lousy defenses in a flag football league and miraculously transforms into the best player in CFB. Now the QB ot OU is a guy who LEFT THE SEC because the guy ahead of him is a better QB....and we're sitting here watching this nonsensical narrative play out about how Lincoln Riley has him doing things Saban couldn't something something, and it's atrocious. Jalen will easily eclipse 5,000 yards this year, and he still won't be the best QB in the nation as long as Tua is the starter at Alabama.
If Jalen Hurts had transferred to Texas Tech, none of these same dolts touting his "progress" would vote for him for the Heisman. And THAT'S the problem a lot of us have with the award.
Graham Harrell threw for more yards than Sam Bradford did, too.....and his team had the same record. Now, I DO happen to think Bradford was the right choice in 2008, but let's be honest: bigger numbers at Texas Tech don't win the awards that lesser numbers do win it at Oklahoma. Those stats are easily demonstrated to be the result of the league in which one plays.
You shouldn't somehow get extra credit points for playing in a flag football league that distorts stats - but (with the exception of RG3) only Oklahoma QBs get that bonus. (And RG3 got his ink because......he beat Oklahoma).
Again, it's nothing personal with you fine Sooner fans that post here, but it gets tiring to watch this year after year. I'll even grant Baker Mayfield deserved the award; Kyler Murray did not. And Jalen Hurts does not so long as Tua is at Alabama.