Now that the regular season is over for CFB, who do you think deserves to win the Heisman?
I've seen my share of games this year (at least 2 or 3 games for all top candidates), and the best football player I have seen this year is Robert Griffin III - bar none. I think this kid has more tools at his disposal than any college QB I have ever seen, better than Cam Newton for sure. I have never seen his combination arm strength, accuracy, size, and athleticism. The kid is a freak.
To me, Barkley is just Clausen 2.0 and Luck is Barkley + Toughness.
Richardson is very very good. But I can't tell how much is him and how much is the 5-star offensive line in front of him. He doesn't look particularly elusive. Is he really any better than Ball? i don't know...
What do you think? It was supposed to be a runaway for Luck, but I think it is going to be close.
i figured we might get a head start on Sparty schadenfreude and post some of the good stuff here. Maybe we'll even help Brian with TWIS!
Here's what I found, from RCMB:
96 minutes ago
It's all about the BCS
The 840 comments on the other open thread won't open anymore for me.
Drinks are on Michigan fans, boys, drink up.
Edit: After you graduate that is.
Considering Ok. State's demolition in progress of Oklahoma, I ask that you take this survey: Who should play in the BCS Title game, and why?
Feel free to discuss what you think below. I'm voting for Ok. St, because I hate rematches, and feel that after this game, they deserve a shot.
Edit: If Ok. St. were to move up, it would be highly unlikely that we would play in the Sugar Bowl. We would almost certainly go to the Fiesta Bowl and play Stanford.
Edit 2: Survey Monkey limits me to getting the results to the first 100 responses before paywalling me. So I'll talk results here:
1. You overwhelmingly believe that Ok. State should be in it over Alabama, by a 85-15 margin.
2. #1 reason: Anti-rematch/we got jobbed 2006. Over half of you cited this as your reason.
3. Even among those who claimed that they chose the better team, they chose Ok. St.
Only #3 comes as a suprise.
Edit 3: Whoever's response to this question was F Ohio, +1.
Why do we have these games? I know I know--money. But is there any rationale at all for them besides money? In every conference title game this year, one team in the matchup is either clearly inferior (UCLA), has already proven in the regular season that they are worse that the team they are playing (Georgia), is totally irelevant (any Big East squad) or has already beeaten their foe in the regular season (MSU). Even in the supposed best conference in football (SEC) the average margin of victory for the winner in the 20 championship games that have been played is two touchdowns. In a playoff scenario, playing teams you have already beaten is ok if everyone is going for the national title, but failing that, most of the teams have already proven themselves superior. The majority of teams in the title games have already played each other. Why play another game? I know...
Listen, I realize this isn't a news flash, but I have to say that I didn't pay much attention to these games (other than watching them) before because the B1G didn't have a championsip game. Now I watch most and think: why is this happening? I know I know...
But maybe I'm mistaken? Do any of you like these games and find a rationale for them? Maybe any extra college football is ok with you?