We're number 1 on the list according to Bleacher report for top5 power schools for this....

[franklinboy]

1. Tennessee has never had a Heisman winner, and has had four runner-ups in its history. The first came in 1951, when single-wing running back Frank Lauricella, known as “Mr. Everything” for his running and passing prowess, finished behind Princeton’s Dick Kazmaier. Five years later, tailback Johnny Majors finished second to Notre Dame’s Paul Hornung, who is still the only player ever to win the Heisman for a team with a losing record.
   In 1993, quarterback Heath Shuler finished second to Florida State’s Charlie Ward for the Heisman. Then came the one that probably stings the most for Vol fans. Peyton Manning is one of the most popular and beloved players in UT history. But he couldn’t overcome the national appeal of Michigan cornerback Charles Woodson. Woodson scored 1,815 points to Manning’s 1,543, becoming the only defensive player ever to win the Heisman.

 

[CAVPUT]

And a little salt for this open wound...

 

[Good2bavol]

Again I will say, that TN could have a QB to go 15-0, throw for 7500 yard, run for 1500 yards for the year, Win the NC, and there is no way he would win the Heist-Man. The media is the swamp!

 

[Zues1]

F em...named Hooker #5 in the Heisman.
F em

 

[VOLfrombama]

The only trophy that really matters is the crystal football

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

Peyton and Leaf had near-identical stats in 1997. At least Charles Woodson offered some appointment TV excitement every week.

Vols fans need to let the ‘97 Heisman go.

 

[indian rick]

1. Tennessee has never had a Heisman winner, and has had four runner-ups in its history. The first came in 1951, when single-wing running back Frank Lauricella, known as “Mr. Everything” for his running and passing prowess, finished behind Princeton’s Dick Kazmaier. Five years later, tailback Johnny Majors finished second to Notre Dame’s Paul Hornung, who is still the only player ever to win the Heisman for a team with a losing record.
   In 1993, quarterback Heath Shuler finished second to Florida State’s Charlie Ward for the Heisman. Then came the one that probably stings the most for Vol fans. Peyton Manning is one of the most popular and beloved players in UT history. But he couldn’t overcome the national appeal of Michigan cornerback Charles Woodson. Woodson scored 1,815 points to Manning’s 1,543, becoming the only defensive player ever to win the Heisman.

You mean Peyton couldn't over come the media propaganda machine

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

1. Tennessee has never had a Heisman winner, and has had four runner-ups in its history. The first came in 1951, when single-wing running back Frank Lauricella, known as “Mr. Everything” for his running and passing prowess, finished behind Princeton’s Dick Kazmaier. Five years later, tailback Johnny Majors finished second to Notre Dame’s Paul Hornung, who is still the only player ever to win the Heisman for a team with a losing record.
   In 1993, quarterback Heath Shuler finished second to Florida State’s Charlie Ward for the Heisman. Then came the one that probably stings the most for Vol fans. Peyton Manning is one of the most popular and beloved players in UT history. But he couldn’t overcome the national appeal of Michigan cornerback Charles Woodson. Woodson scored 1,815 points to Manning’s 1,543, becoming the only defensive player ever to win the Heisman.

As a Vol fan why would you make this stupid thread?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Peyton and Leaf had near-identical stats in 1997. At least Charles Woodson offered some appointment TV excitement every week.

Vols fans need to let the ‘97 Heisman go.

Most have. It’s just when it’s brought up it stings. Peyton Manning was the best player in college football in 1997. Everybody knows it.

 

[HOAV]

The only trophy that really matters is the crystal football

It’s not a crystal football anymore

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

Most have. It’s just when it’s brought up it stings. Peyton Manning was the best player in college football in 1997. Everybody knows it.

But was he? I mean, Ryan Leaf alone shows that, like I said, there was a near-identical QB that year. He had more passing yards, more yards per attempt, a better passer rating. Only 2 fewer TDs and the same amount of interceptions—meaning Peyton was barely the best QB that year.

Charles Woodson was a playmaker—with season defining plays in all 3 phases of the game—on the national championship team. No matter what he was doing, he was a threat.

So I guess the question becomes: how do you define the best football player? Because Woodson was a next level player that year. And he wasn’t some flash in the pan college player, either. Dudes in the HOF.

 

[DaddyChad]

Peyton and Leaf had near-identical stats in 1997. At least Charles Woodson offered some appointment TV excitement every week.

Vols fans need to let the ‘97 Heisman go.

I’ve let the Heisman go in general. Yankee popularity contest.

 

[DaddyChad]

But was he? I mean, Ryan Leaf alone shows that, like I said, there was a near-identical QB that year. He had more passing yards, more yards per attempt, a better passer rating. Only 2 fewer TDs and the same amount of interceptions—meaning Peyton was barely the best QB that year.

Charles Woodson was a playmaker—with season defining plays in all 3 phases of the game—on the national championship team. No matter what he was doing, he was a threat.

So I guess the question becomes: how do you define the best football player? Because Woodson was a next level player that year. And he wasn’t some flash in the pan college player, either. Dudes in the HOF.

Sigh. You’re right Manning was just a flash in the pan in the pros. I’m trying to decide if you’re really a fan or just trolling at this point.

 

[VOLfrombama]

It’s not a crystal football anymore

Fine. Whatever this thing is supposed to be

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

You’re right Manning was just a flash in the pan in the pros.

Lol don’t even try this straw man argument like that was my implication. Literally one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.

But let me clarify: my point was that Woodson didn’t have some one-off great season—he proved himself to be one of the greatest football players of all time.

 

[Unconditional Surrender]

Peyton and Leaf had near-identical stats in 1997. At least Charles Woodson offered some appointment TV excitement every week.

Vols fans need to let the ‘97 Heisman go.

trash take

 

[DaddyChad]

Lol don’t even try this straw man argument like that was my implication. Literally one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.

But, let me clarify: my point was that Woodson didn’t have some one-off great season—he proved himself to be one of the greatest football players of all time.

It’s not your most idiotic take either though.

 

[volfanhill]

Peyton and Leaf had near-identical stats in 1997. At least Charles Woodson offered some appointment TV excitement every week.

Vols fans need to let the ‘97 Heisman go.

Lol. That's dumb

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

Glad you cleared up what kind of person you are. It’s not your most idiotic take either though.

And what kind of person am I? Someone who calls out someone trying to make garbage straw man arguments?

To you: Charles Woodson had a great NFL career=Peyton didn’t have a great NFL career. So stupid.

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

Lol. That's dumb

Explain how any part about that is dumb. Look at the stat lines. Manning and Leaf are neck and neck. Woodson offered something those two didn’t, which got him the attention he got—deservedly so.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

But was he? I mean, Ryan Leaf alone shows that, like I said, there was a near-identical QB that year. He had more passing yards, more yards per attempt, a better passer rating. Only 2 fewer TDs and the same amount of interceptions—meaning Peyton was barely the best QB that year.

Charles Woodson was a playmaker—with season defining plays in all 3 phases of the game—on the national championship team. No matter what he was doing, he was a threat.

So I guess the question becomes: how do you define the best football player? Because Woodson was a next level player that year. And he wasn’t some flash in the pan college player, either. Dudes in the HOF.

I am not going through this. Many broadcasters said it. Many players and even NFL guys said it. There is nothing you can say that changes the fact. This is common sense and sad that a so called TN fan even questions this. Have whatever opinion you want.

 

[pimo1]

No disrespect but out of all those I think Hendon got boned the worst. Peyton got boned but at least Woodson was an interesting story. Hendon was flat QB to QB and for him not to be in the top 4 is BS. I don't think given how the season turned out Hendon could have or should have won.. but he should have been a finalist.

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

I am not going through this. Many broadcasters said it. Many players and even NFL guys said it. There is nothing you can say that changes the fact. This is common sense and sad that a so called TN fan even questions this. Have whatever opinion you want.

So your response to laying out the stat lines in comparison to Woodson’s performance is “many broadcasters disagree”? Well then, I guess I’be certainly been put in my place.

 

[VolArmy74]

But was he? I mean, Ryan Leaf alone shows that, like I said, there was a near-identical QB that year. He had more passing yards, more yards per attempt, a better passer rating. Only 2 fewer TDs and the same amount of interceptions—meaning Peyton was barely the best QB that year.

Charles Woodson was a playmaker—with season defining plays in all 3 phases of the game—on the national championship team. No matter what he was doing, he was a threat.

So I guess the question becomes: how do you define the best football player? Because Woodson was a next level player that year. And he wasn’t some flash in the pan college player, either. Dudes in the HOF.

What an absolutely terrible argument. Woodson scarely played on offense and didn't do that much on defense. The claim was "he shut down one side of the field." in a league where no one threw the football.
He had 14 touches on offense all season. He had a laughable 47 tackles. Flowers had 57 tackles for Tennessee this year as a comparison.

The following year Champ Bailey had nearly 1100 all purpose yards, and more tackles than Woodson. He was a true triple threat player that was on the field over 100 plays in 7 games. He didn't sniff the Heistman.

There's no comparison about what position and person impacted the fortunes of their team the most. It's a quarterback in a landslide. You can ask any coach in the history of football if they were starting a team, would they want Manning or Woodson. The answer would always be Manning.

ESPN tried to promote multiple Big 10 players before Woodson. They all had horrible games soon after and their team lost. They finally settled on Woodson, who quite literally couldn't have a bad game because he had no real responsibility compared to a quarterback. He doesn't make any tackles? That just means the other team was afraid of him. He catches 2 passes in a game for 38 yards? Well that is great for defensive back playing receiver.

 

[LordBolton]

But was he? I mean, Ryan Leaf alone shows that, like I said, there was a near-identical QB that year. He had more passing yards, more yards per attempt, a better passer rating. Only 2 fewer TDs and the same amount of interceptions—meaning Peyton was barely the best QB that year.

Charles Woodson was a playmaker—with season defining plays in all 3 phases of the game—on the national championship team. No matter what he was doing, he was a threat.

So I guess the question becomes: how do you define the best football player? Because Woodson was a next level player that year. And he wasn’t some flash in the pan college player, either. Dudes in the HOF.

Second part of the problem in 97. Tennessee would have whipped Michigan. Nebraska was that much better than us, proven on the field. They would have beat Michigan like government mules. I'm glad such things are now decided on the field, and the sportswriters can only push the Big 10 schools so far.