Oct 21, 2003 10:07 AM
|Hmmmm... Jason White, the pretty much consensus #1 in the running last week, 251 yards, couple TDs and an INT. This against who? MO?
Let's compare to Matt Leinart who killed ND with 351 yards, 4 TDs, no INTs. Both the season numbers are at least in the same ballpark, yet no radar has picked him up. Of course, seniors get the nod, however, similar numbers ought to be considered by intelligent people.
Now for the kicker, Symons has thrown for nearly 1500 yards more than both White and Leinart, in 6 six games no less... He has far more TDs, a few more INTs and also has 5 rushing TDs. I think he threw 8 TDs against A&M.
Just a little fair and balanced reporting. You decide.
|why only running backs and...||ClydeTri|
Oct 21, 2003 10:31 AM
|qb's and the like? Why no dominate lineman? Why no dominate linebacker? I know, its not for the best football player, its for the best skill position player on a top ranked team.|
|It is an individual award in a team sport||jtolleson|
Oct 21, 2003 12:56 PM
|which is an odd thing. The only individuals who can repeatedly make or break a team's fortunes, IMHO, are RB's and QB's.
A dominating linebacker working a mediocre backfield, or behind a mediocre line, is not going to singlehandedly change the scoring balance in a game, for example. But a high-zoot QB or RB can, even on a mediocre team, single handedly win (or lose) close ball games. Or even not-so-close ball games. It gives them the prospect of MVP-style visibility that linemen, linebackers, and folks in the secondary just don't get.
It is a bit of a guessing game, because even a high-powered offensive player like a QB or RB is going to suffer in anonymity behind a crummy enough line, or have his stats artificially inflated by a stellar supporting cast.
That's why the Outland Trophy, Butkus Award and the like were created the fill the need to recognize those other folks. But the Heisman is a different animal to me.
Oct 21, 2003 9:00 PM
|it gets its relevance from trying to pick the next NFL superstar (okay, it flops alot).
Remember the old debate about... crap. What was his name? He played both sides of the ball for Holy Cross ... whether he was a better candidate than Bo Jackson? Well, I don't know if old what's his name even played in the NFL, and although Bo's superstar NFL career was cut short by injury, there's no question that he had that "Heisman" glow because of his pro future. Pro material outside of offensive powerhouses... can you say Tony Mandarich? I think that Heisman voters go for what they consider to be the better high profile bet.
Right or wrong.
And my examples are showing my age since I don't watch much football anymore.
|Two words. 34. 31. Okay a few more...||Brooks|
Oct 22, 2003 7:43 AM
|Go Bears. They may be bad, but they beat SC, which is almost as satisfying as beating Stanfurd.|
|I guess you didn't watch much football in the ...||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 12:12 PM
|Lawrence Taylor era. I am no Giant fan, but he shaped games.|
|I guess you didn't watch much football in the ...||jtolleson|
Oct 22, 2003 12:58 PM
|Actually I did. And I'd agree there was game "shaping" in that 3 sacks a game is good for 20 yards in the wrong direction, a stop on 3rd and short ends a scoring drive, etc. But I don't think the Giants would have won the Super Bowl without Phil Simms. They MIGHT have won it without LT.
It really is much more of a team sport than baseball, or even basketball, but I think it highly more likely that a lone offensive standout changes the game outcome than a lone defensive power.
|You must be kidding||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 2:03 PM
|They won one without Phil Simms. But that isn't even the issue. LT was so dominant that opposing teams entire game was planned around him. Typical Giant winning scores were 9-7. That was due to the dominat defense and LT was that dominant defense. John Madden wouldn't agree with your assessment :O)|
|You must be kidding||jtolleson|
Oct 22, 2003 2:57 PM
|It does nothing to the overall issue, which is why is the Heisman Trophy so dominated by offensive players. A lone offensive player has a better chance of changing the outcome of a game than a lone defensive player. And no lone example, such as LT, Mike Singletary, Howie Long, Dexter Manley, Bruce Smith, or anyone else will fundamentally persuade me otherwise.|
|I agree||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 4:01 PM
|I was just responding to the idea that a defensive player couldn't dominate a game. You just mentioned a few that have. I think balance is what's needed. Being a Jets fan it pains me to say it, but Marino was probably one of the best, if not the best, and he could only do so much by himself. They had an average defense and no running back to speak of. On the flip side, Simms was rather average, but he had better support on the ground and a defense that was a gamebreaker. Simms won 2 Marino 0. I wonder what Marino would have given to have Ricky Williams in his backfield?|
|Trivia question: Who was the last Jewish guy to win the Heisman||bicyclerepairman|
Oct 22, 2003 2:54 PM
|Trivia question answer: Fred Goldman||bicyclerepairman|
Oct 23, 2003 8:42 PM
|WHO? He doesn't appear to be on this list||Live Steam|
Oct 24, 2003 7:04 AM
|It's a joke, in horribly poor taste||TJeanloz|
Oct 24, 2003 8:00 AM
|Fred Goldman was Ron Goldman's father, who "won" O.J. Simpson's worldly possessions, including his Heisman Trophy, in court.
No Jew has ever won the Heisman on the field, as far as I know.
|Ah! Not really poor, but sad. Heck good for FG!||Live Steam|
Oct 24, 2003 8:17 AM
|I hope he melted it down into a gun!|
|fair and balanced from USC homer?||lotterypick|
Oct 21, 2003 10:54 AM
|I think not.
Did you know the Bruins are in first. It ain't no accident!
ha ha ha.
We suck, but we're ahead of you. ha ha ha
Oct 21, 2003 11:00 AM
|You can stay there all the way til the SCvUCLA game, then, you'll surely not be there!
|We're like Get Smart||lotterypick|
Oct 21, 2003 11:17 AM
|Bumbling our way to victory.
You guys are getting jacked by the BCS. Just keep winning and hopefully things will turn out.
You smacking ND was one of your big games, hopefully when we play you, we won't get slapped. I just want a well played game, if we win it'll be a miracle and you certainly will be pissed.
That'd be nice. Go Bruins.
|Um, Strength of Schedule mean anything to you?||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 7:00 AM
|There are a few issues which will make Matt Leinart a very unlikely Heisman candidate:
1. When compared to White, his numbers are good, but look at who Oklahoma has played vs. who USC has played - Auburn, which should have been good, but isn't. Notre Dame, which should have been good, but isn't. BYU and Hawaii are jokes. Arizona State and Stanford are miserable. And they lost to CAL.
Oklahoma has beaten: UCLA, Missouri, Texas - and been convincing in every win.
USC's wins (and loss) just don't stack up against Oklahoma's.
2. If Leinart puts up good numbers, it will take more shine off Carson Palmer's Heisman than it will put on his - it will just show that any quarterback, surrounded by those receivers and Pete Carroll's system, can put up great numbers.
As far as Symons is concerned, he plays in a gimmick offense, designed to get him stats - the same as Kliff Kingsbury last year. If Tech went undefeated, there's no doubt that he would be the Heisman winner, but where the offense is 100% focused on him, it makes what he does less special, from a statistical perspective.
|Heck yes!!! UCLA and MO? LOL||No_sprint|
Oct 22, 2003 8:50 AM
|and Fresno State, Iowa State, North Texas. LOL
The Big 12 is no Pac 10 or Big 10, that's for sure.
|There are cupcakes, and there's what you do to them||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 9:02 AM
|And losing to a cupcake (Cal) won't help anybody's Heisman campaign. And UCLA beat Cal - something that USC couldn't quite pull off. Also, the Pac 10 is a grand 1-3 against the Big XII this year. I wouldn't go bragging about that too much.
The Pac 10 also has two top 25 teams. The Big XII has four, and four more receiving votes. Both conferences have two teams in the BCS polls. You're even trying to give a Big XII quarterback props for the Heisman. The Pac 10 has the strength at the top (USC, Washington State) but severely lacks the depth of the Big XII.
|Bragging? Not me, I simply reported what I saw...||No_sprint|
Oct 22, 2003 9:20 AM
|Your opinion is the Pac 10 is not as deep as the Big 12, my opinion differs entirely.|
|Yes, but my opinion has the stats to back it up (nm)||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 9:24 AM
|Not in my opinion. Stats can be tweaked to represent||No_sprint|
Oct 22, 2003 9:36 AM
|whatever it is you want.|
|Then tweak them. Find a stat that makes the Pac10 stronger (nm)||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 9:39 AM
|Here ya go...||No_sprint|
Oct 22, 2003 10:26 AM
|Pac 10 - 325 NCAA titles
2nd place, Big 10 - 193 NCAA titles
Now that is strength, relentless domination throughout time, consistency, etc.
|Are we talking about more than Football now?||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 10:34 AM
|Because I'm pretty sure there haven't been 518 NCAA championships awarded in football. And how many of those titles are Stanford in Fencing or some other non-sport that they beat everybody at? Not to mention that that statistic is a virtually meaningless comparison, considering that the Big XII has only been around for 6 years.
But at least now your opinion has something backing it up, even if it remains hopelessly weak.
|Got wrapped up in Pac-10 power and strength||No_sprint|
Oct 22, 2003 11:23 AM
|2003 remains completely in the air as we're only about half way through.
2002 is in the books. 7 Pac 10 teams went to bowls and the conference posted nearly 70% wins vs. non-conference opponents.
Once again, just doing some reporting here.
Oct 22, 2003 11:51 AM
|8 Big XII teams went bowling in 2002- 75%, compared to 70% of the Pac 10.
The Big XII won 5 (and barely lost 2 of them).
The Pac 10 won 2 of their 7 bowls.
In head-to-head bowl games, the Big XII beat the Pac 10 in both games (the Rose Bowl and the Holiday Bowl).
The Pac10's non-conference record is only as impressive as the teams that they play. When your non-conference schedule includes BYU and Hawaii, how hard can it be?
Not that Kansas State exactly schedules a murderers' row of non-conference opponents - but the statistic is relatively meaningless.
Oct 22, 2003 12:07 PM
|and when your non-conf games include a top 10 ranked Auburn, Kansas St., Iowa, Notre Dame year in and year out, Florida State, Penn St., Colorado, Purdue etc., it speaks large.
While according to some stats another conference won more bowls than the Pac 10 last year, that hardly speaks to the perpetual strength of a conference through the ages.
It would seem that according to dry stats, well, since there's no gimmick statistic, Symons should be leading the race hands down.
My post was largely rhetorical because I know the process of the Heisman, it's a bunch of guys voting a popular vote. Statistics are only part of the game, subjectivity looms large. My original post was taking an objective look at some numbers.
Too bad you turned it into a Big 12 vs. Pac 10 argument that included even ridicule.
All I did was post some numbers with no opinion in the post.
|Where's the ridicule?||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 12:22 PM
|Symons' statistics are good - except for one: 2 losses. The odds of Tech finishing with fewer than 4 losses are not good. I don't believe anybody with a record as bad as 8-4 has ever won a Heisman, and that will matter more than his passing numbers. White leads the NCAA in QB rating - which takes all QB statistics into account, rather than just yardage. But If Tech pulls the upset of Oklahoma, he probably has a fair chance of winning it.
Symons has thrown the ball 1.79x more than White (397 to 221 attempts), has been intercepted 2x more (8 to 4), has a lower completion %, and has a lower yds/completion rate.
Leinart, with roughly the same number of attempts as White (208 to 221), has 200 fewer yards passing, 20 fewer completions, a lower completion %, 5 fewer TD passes, and fewer yds/completion.
I suppose if total yards was what got you the Heisman, Symons should win it. Unfortunately, there's a lot more to being a quarterback than putting it up early and often.
Oct 22, 2003 12:24 PM
|I'm also more interested in the Heisman race than in conference strength, but you were the one who took us down that road:
"The Big 12 is no Pac 10 or Big 10, that's for sure."
Oct 22, 2003 1:30 PM
|USCs wins don't stack up against Oklahomas.
and your subject line
Strength of schedule mean anything to you?
The Big 12 is definitely no Pac 10 or Big 10. Those last two have how many NCAA titles between them?
|What's wrong with that?||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 1:46 PM
|It's not a conference issue that Oklahoma has just, flat out, played (and beaten) better teams this year. By the BCS strength of schedule formula, Oklahoma's schedule was the 11th toughest, while USC's was 29th. Playing that tougher schedule, Oklahoma, behind White, is undefeated. That definitely plays into the Heisman race - losing doesn't help a Heisman campaign. Losing to Cal really doesn't help a Heisman campaign.
If we want to talk about how many NCAA Football titles have been won by teams that are in those respective conferences, it looks like:
Big 10 schools: 14 NCAA football titles
Pac 10 schools: 7 NCAA football titles (5 for USC)
Big 12 schools: 17 NCAA football titles
Methodology: Where the title was shared (Pre-BCS days), it was double counted. For example, when Nebraska and Michigan split the title in 1997, both the Big 12 and Big 10 were credited with a title.
So to answer your question, specifically to football, the schools of the Pac 10 and Big 10 have 21 National Championships.
|Not counting Football,||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 2:01 PM
|Not counting Football, which technically is not an NCAA championship, the numbers look like this:
Big 10: 170 Championships (Iowa's 22 wrestling championships lead them)
Pac 10: 325 Championships (Led by USC Track & Field)
Big 12: 153 Championships (Led by Oklahoma State's 31 wrestling titles).
Not that I think winning a lot of non-revenue sports is all that interesting. And if we want to throw cycling/mountain biking in for good measure, the Big XII would dominate that sport.
|One final note,||TJeanloz|
Oct 22, 2003 2:09 PM
|My football numbers only go back to 1936, when the AP started the poll. In pre-1936 (when as many as 4 Champions were crowned annually), the tally looks like:
Big 10: 12
Pac 10: 6
Big 12: 1
And to show the relevence of those today:
Ivy: 45 - almost as many as the other three combined.