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

#52
#52
tennesseeduke said:
Majors and Manning both were $h!t on and should have won. Shuler was very close also!
Click to expand...
Oklahoma’s McDonald and Tubbs had decent arguments as well and stole votes from each other. All three were more deserving than Hornung, who should not have gotten votes.
 
#56
#56
Daniel_Lincolns_Foot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Comparing leaf to manning is dumb considering the difference in SOS. Woodson didn’t even have the stars Champ Bailey had playing three way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NighthawkVol
#57
#57
franklinboy said:
  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.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
#58
#58
GregAmsler said:
A) Leaf played in the Pac 10. Those stats aren't apples to apples. Also, you omit that Leaf only completed 55% of his passes, Manning 60%. Comparing a QB against SEC defenses and Pac 10 defenses, then or now, is silly.

B) You mention what CW did in the NFL to back your point, so does the same apply to Manning and Leaf? No, those two were not the same QB. At all.

C) Woodson was a great player. But he's not the greatest defensive player in college football history. They chose that one year to promote a defensive guy. Hell, Champ Bailey was more impressive the next season, but he didn't even get an invite to NYC. The Woodson propaganda machine was powerful. Case in point...the Ohio State game was touted as the game that put him over the top because he got an INT in the end zone on an awful throw by Germaine and he caught a long pass. But he was also burned for a 70 yard TD by David Boston, a fact which was rarely mentioned. They just glossed over it because they really wanted him to win it.

Again, great player, but odd to change the standards for one year, just as they did for Majors. It's telling that no defensive player has won it in the 25 years since.
Click to expand...

My point about Woodson’s pro career was simply reiterate the fact that he was a great player that continued his success into his professional career—not to justify him getting the Heisman.

As for the PAC 10 vs SEC debate, I’m not really going to get into that. There’s no point in comparing the players if it’s always going to boil down to “they don’t play in the SEC.” Their stats are their stats, they had great seasons, and they are comparable: that’s the point.

So you had two top tier quarterbacks with comparable stats and then another guy that was a dynamic player in all three phases of the game (that also benefited from national exposure playing for Michigan). So I can see when it was time to vote and the question was asked “who is the best football player?” a lot of voters said “Charles Woodson is the best football player this year.”

Now, maybe they targeted a defensive player. Maybe there was some negative bias towards Peyton. I don’t know. We can talk the merits of offense vs defense but I’m not going to deny that it’s understandable that voters thought Woodson the best player in the country in ‘97.
 
#59
#59
GregAmsler said:
C) Woodson was a great player. But he's not the greatest defensive player in college football history. They chose that one year to promote a defensive guy. Hell, Champ Bailey was more impressive the next season, but he didn't even get an invite to NYC. The Woodson propaganda machine was powerful. Case in point...the Ohio State game was touted as the game that put him over the top because he got an INT in the end zone on an awful throw by Germaine and he caught a long pass. But he was also burned for a 70 yard TD by David Boston, a fact which was rarely mentioned. They just glossed over it because they really wanted him to win it.

Again, great player, but odd to change the standards for one year, just as they did for Majors. It's telling that no defensive player has won it in the 25 years since.
Click to expand...

Not only was Champ Bailey not invited to the Heisman ceremony - he wasn’t even in the top five in votes received. Ricky Williams won that year, and deservedly so, but Bailey was voted behind people like Cade McNown and Michael Bishop. But somehow Peyton wasn’t good enough.

Charles Woodson won because ESPN bought his award for him. They manufactured his entire campaign. It’s plain as day. Everyone knows it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaddyChad and luthervol
#60
#60
Manning got dinged for his record against Florida in the national media. Not that the losses against Florida were actually on him.

Hooker lost any shot at it between the loss to Georgia and getting injured.

People trying to compare stats between players are forgetting a crucial component of the award IMO. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a glorified popularity contest.

Thats why Notre Dame, USC, and Ohio St have the most winners ever along with Oklahoma.

It isn't really about the best overall player in the game. Otherwise there would be more defensive players that have won it along the way.

It isn't totally about the stats either. Otherwise, Chad Pennington would have beat out everyone in 1997. 42 TDs and a higher passer rating than Manning. And less talent around him than either Manning or Leaf. I am NOT saying Pennington was better than Manning, just saying his stats were as good or better albeit against lesser competition.

1997 Passing Stats | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

At the end of the day the Heisman is just a subjective award voted on by a bunch of media who mostly never played the game and have an inherent regional bias given the way the voting is set up.

Interesting topic to discuss but nothing to get worked up over.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chuck0303
#61
#61
Good2bavol said:
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!
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct! The selection committee & media are corrupt & that's not gonna change.
 
#64
#64
Daniel_Lincolns_Foot said:
My point about Woodson’s pro career was simply reiterate the fact that he was a great player that continued his success into his professional career—not to justify him getting the Heisman.

As for the PAC 10 vs SEC debate, I’m not really going to get into that. There’s no point in comparing the players if it’s always going to boil down to “they don’t play in the SEC.” Their stats are their stats, they had great seasons, and they are comparable: that’s the point.

So you had two top tier quarterbacks with comparable stats and then another guy that was a dynamic player in all three phases of the game (that also benefited from national exposure playing for Michigan). So I can see when it was time to vote and the question was asked “who is the best football player?” a lot of voters said “Charles Woodson is the best football player this year.”

Now, maybe they targeted a defensive player. Maybe there was some negative bias towards Peyton. I don’t know. We can talk the merits of offense vs defense but I’m not going to deny that it’s understandable that voters thought Woodson the best player in the country in ‘97.
Click to expand...

It was “understandable”? Sure. But why hasn’t it been understandable in other years, when there are less deserving players than Manning? Why wasn’t it understandable the next season when Champ Bailey wasn’t even a candidate, despite having a better season than Woodson?

No one denies Woodson was a great player. But a better word than understandable is arbitrary. Because they arbitrarily decided in just that ONE season that a defensive player could win it. I’m sure the best player has played on defense many times. There’s a 50/50 chance of that being true every year. But it’s a QB/RB/WR award. Except when the obvious choice who fits the normal parameters is a Tennessee icon. In other years, defensive players not only don’t win it, they aren’t even considered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voltopia
#65
#65
Daniel_Lincolns_Foot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I’m tired in general of hearing about our successes in the 90s. I’m a big Peyton Manning fan, but remember the justification repeated over and over by the media, “Peyton Manning was not even the top rated QB in his conference. How can you award him the Heisman Trophy?” (Mike Bobo of Georgia was.)
 
#67
#67
HSTVol said:
Agreed, and I’m tired in general of hearing about our successes in the 90s. I’m a big Peyton Manning fan, but remember the justification repeated over and over by the media, “Peyton Manning was not even the top rated QB in his conference. How can you award him the Heisman Trophy?” (Mike Bobo of Georgia was.)
Click to expand...
Mike boo boo…..Bobo Don’t Know…The Heisman Should’ve been Peyton’s PERIOD !
 
Last edited:
#69
#69
Who cares about the Heisman trophy anymore? As Jonathan Crompton put it the other day, it has become a trophy for the best player on the best team award, and that's it.
 
#70
#70
pimo1 said:
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.
Click to expand...


^This. There is no way that Bennett should have been a finalist over Hooker. How can Bennett be considered over Hooker as the best player in college football, if he isn't even the best player at his position in his conference division? That was done as a slap in the face to Hendon Hooker - period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titan&Volfan4life
#71
#71
Daniel_Lincolns_Foot said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not that Woodson wasn't great and didn't have a great year. It's that they bucked the system of choosing the best offensive player that particular season and the media was so prevalent. There's a defensive player every couple of years that has a "Woodside" type season but never before or since has the media pushed them like that year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titan&Volfan4life
#73
#73
franklinboy said:
  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.
Click to expand...
I have seen all of our Heisman runner-up players play In person. All were deserving of the award, but the two who were truly “robber “ of the award were Majors and Manning. The real problem with this award is the group of voters who decide the winner; the sports media. The integrity of these people has been flawed for at least 70 years. There are built biases simply by the concentration of voters to a few geographic metropolitan areas. A bias against SEC players, excluding Alabama, is held by many of the voters in the North East, Mid West and the West Coast sports media voters. Unfortunately, members of the current sports media have not demonstrated their ability to eliminate their biases as well as their predecessors.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Titan&Volfan4life
#74
#74
I don't remember where I read this, years ago, but it was by someone who interviewed (with anonymity) a number of Heisman voters, both media and past winners. This writer noted that from his sample, the biggest factor for each individual voter was "how will I defend my choice."

His impression was that most voters seldom went with their gut, but instead voted for the least questionable (or, safest) resume. Just human nature.

Statistical leaders at QB (and in some eras, RB) frequently come from new or exotic offensive systems. Once a Heisman voter finds him/herself asking "How much of that resume was the player, and how much was the system?" that candidate becomes questionable, and it works against him with most Heisman voters.

My guess is that Hooker's injury (and his USCe performance prior to the injury) provided many voters the necessary cover to not engage the player-or-system question. But I wonder if time will eventually show that Hooker's ratio of interceptions-to-total passes thrown was under-recognized, and that he truly had a remarkable, historically significant season as a passing-running quarterback--in any system.

But he is not the first, in any aspect of life, to go under-appreciated. Nor is this is a world where "justice" has a history of running amok.

I'm bringing up this Heisman voting angle because, moving forward, Heupel's quarterbacks (if Heupel is still our coach, and if his offense has not been adopted by many more Power5 programs) are going to always have this question attached to their stats. So don't be surprised if 10 years from now we have at least two more Vols to add to the OP's list.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Titan&Volfan4life
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top