OT: Heisman Selection

Submitted by Catchafire on
It makes sense to wait until after bowl season is played to select the Heisman winner and yet we don't. Yesterday we saw the Heisman winner Lamar Jackson falter against LSU and Watson throttle fOSU. Do the votes change if we had to vote today? What if Clemson goes on to defeat Bama soundly? After last night, my vote is still for *Peppers. Watson is a close 2nd. *If Peppers plays against FSU I think we win and limit the big plays by half easily.
MGoBoard
Football

Mr. Yost

January 1st, 2017 at 8:44 AM ^

I love Peppers but he had no business winning the Heisman and even he said so.

He should've been invited, and he was, after that...it was simply to show face and take part in the experience.

Sure, Watson would probably be the winner now and Jackson would fall to #2. I'm sure this isn't the only year if you could revote after the bowls that things would change. Not sure it makes a bit of difference though.

It's 2017...why not use this to speculate on who are your early front runners for next season?

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Cali Wolverine

January 1st, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^

After hearing that Fournette and McCafferty weren't playing in their Bowl Games, she said why don't they wait until after the bowls to see how the players play...especially now that some of these players nominated for the Heisman may start skipping the Bowl Games to stay healthy for the draft. You want to be considered for the most prestigious award in college football...play the whole season.

Joined: 01/13/2013

MGoPoints: 21755

MGoGrendel

January 1st, 2017 at 8:47 AM ^

I like the way pro sports picks their awards based on the regular season. The Heisman is fine how it is. This way, a strong player from the MAC, for example, could win it.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/21/2013

MGoPoints: 70271

Dylan

January 1st, 2017 at 8:50 AM ^

Does no one else feel a little guilty about Peppers? Like the feeling that if he would have played in Ypsilanti instead of Ann Arbor, no one would even care / know who he is? Just feel like there are probably a bunch of "Peppers-Like" guys out there except that are stronger at one specific position instead of being good at several and that it was probably all the Michigan / Harbaugh / ESPN hypetrain.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/22/2013

MGoPoints: 6187

Cali Wolverine

January 1st, 2017 at 12:52 PM ^

Did you two have too much champaign last night?! Remember before you click save, re-read what you wrote first. Peppers is going to be an early to mid first round draft pick...hence there are not "a bunch" of guys just like Peppers...and there never has and never will be anyone in Ypsilanti like Peppers. Come on guys...this blog demands better.

Joined: 01/13/2013

MGoPoints: 21755

DonAZ

January 1st, 2017 at 9:14 AM ^

Well, that's true of any big program.  Focus is drawn to the blue-blood programs, and really good talent there tends to get hyped. 

Look at Johnny Manziel at Texas A&M.  If he had played at, say, Wyoming, there's no way he'd have been in the Heisman discussion.  Hell, I'd argue that if Texas A&M was still in the Big 12 for that year Manziel would not have won the Heisman.  It was being in the SEC that propelled that hype train.

Joined: 12/05/2011

MGoPoints: 16679

ijohnb

January 1st, 2017 at 12:12 PM ^

He did not exactly suck. He may have benefited from some unwarranted hype at times, but it was not like there wasn't any substance there. If you listen to some guys in the media, he was terrible. Those guys are just hating. He was basically voted the fifth best player in the country and I think that is about right.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Catchafire

January 1st, 2017 at 9:03 AM ^

The same argument can be made if he had played at Bama or fOSU. How many times do we get elite talent, they don't pan out here, and excel elsewhere or the NFL? I am sad at our fan base that wish Harbaugh gone or saying Peppers is garbage.

Joined: 09/30/2009

MGoPoints: 27904

Mr. Yost

January 1st, 2017 at 9:32 AM ^

No.

And I think you're only saying this because of how how he ended the season.

He was leading the COUNTRY in tackles for a loss for the first part of the season. He was getting sacks, he was all over the field. He had a punt return for a TD. He OBLITERATED Rutgers basically 1 v 11 playing offense.

It's just like Lamar Jackson, he played WAAAAY better in the first half of the year and then struggled down the stretch. Peppers just struggled more (in terms of maintaining the pace they were on).

When Harbaugh said "I think you're looking at the Heisman winner"...there weren't too many people arguing his opinion. It's been a long season. I think you're forgetting how dominant Peppers was before the Bye Week. So let's say he was the clear cut #2 (which he pretty much was - Watson hadn't gotten hot and neither did the Oklahoma guys).

So basically he fell from #2 to #5...post Bye Week, that's fair - you can't ignore the first half of the year and if you do...you have to do it for Lamar Jackson as well. And he probably falls further if McCaffrey or Fournette or Cook truly went off. None of them did so Peppers just hung on.

It's kind of like when Michigan lost to Iowa. Sure we should've dropped...we lost to an unranked team! But everyone else loss then too...so we just stayed at #3. Peppers was losing ground but the only guys doing what Peppers and Jackson were doing at the beginning of the year were Watson, Westbrook and Mayfield. And all 3 of those guys passed Peppers, meanwhile Jackson was losing his big lead, but had such a big lead it didn't matter.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

DrMantisToboggan

January 1st, 2017 at 11:00 AM ^

There are a couple metrics I use to judge football literacy and whether or not someone is football-intelligent enough to discuss football with. The basic is "do you know what a '3 tech' is?" If not then you probably have too basic an understanding and appreciation for the game for me to have a pleasant and productive football conversation with you. For college football fans, the next test is "do you think Jabrill Peppers is elite/worth the hype?" If you can't watch a game and see how much Peppers changes what offenses do, disrupts plays, improves field position, and makes plays, then I can't help you and I certainly don't want to talk football with you.

Suggesting that Jabrill is anything short of incredible is ignorant and, frankly, shameful if you profess to be a Michigan fan.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/26/2014

MGoPoints: 74183

ijohnb

January 1st, 2017 at 12:23 PM ^

is not an all time great, I don't see where anybody is saying he is. He was an all time great talent that did not entirely pan out to the degree we all hoped. In terms of the greats at Michigan, he falls short of the Woodson, Braylon, Desmond, category. He falls in more with the Breaston, Marquis Walker, Leon Hall category. He may very well be one of the best pros to ever come out of Michigan though.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

MichiganExile

January 1st, 2017 at 1:48 PM ^

If you can't have a productive conversation about a subject with someone that has less knowledge of that subject than yourself, then you probably don't know about that subject as much as you think you do. You shouldn't ever presume someone isn't worth talking to just because they don't know as much as yourself. 

 

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 12384

DonAZ

January 1st, 2017 at 9:05 AM ^

Man, ain't this the truth.  When the dust settles from this bowl season the realization that will settle in is the playoffs are rendering the other bowls less and less meaningful.

It's sad to see because eventually -- not this year, not next, but eventually -- the other bowls will wither away and we'll be left with college football where a few powerful programs will be competing for the playoff spots, and everyone else will be left standing on the sidelines watching.

/sad rant

Joined: 12/05/2011

MGoPoints: 16679

Catchafire

January 1st, 2017 at 9:18 AM ^

I tend to agree with this tbh. Tomorrow, there are three big games being played but the only game people are talking about in the media are Bama vs Clemson. In time the CFP will be expanded to more than 4 teams and it will eventually. Further reduce the importance of other bowl games

Joined: 09/30/2009

MGoPoints: 27904

DonAZ

January 1st, 2017 at 9:20 AM ^

The "lesser" bowl games matter for the players and fans.

As the famous line from Jerry McGuire goes: "Show me the money."

(If I were motivated I'd dig into lesser-bowl attendance over the years, team payouts, etc.  I'm seeing a lot of very empty stands at some of these bowl games.  For example, the Sun Bowl in El Paso was stunningly empty.)

I agree that for now the lesser bowls hold some interest.  Let's revisit this in five years.

Joined: 12/05/2011

MGoPoints: 16679

Goggles Paisano

January 1st, 2017 at 11:05 AM ^

Lesser bowl games will go away when the organizers and sponsors start losing money on them.  41 or 42 bowl games this year.  Almost 2/3 of the 128 FBS teams make it to a bowl - that is ridiculous but as long there is money to be made, they will continue on.  

 

Joined: 07/30/2011

MGoPoints: 41232

HelloHeisman91

January 1st, 2017 at 9:18 AM ^

I don't understand this line of thinking. Before the BCS there was 2-3 bowl games that could have an impact on the MNC. During the BCS era there was 1 bowl that determined the NC. Now we get a guaranteed 3 games every year. How have the other bowls been diminished?

Joined: 08/05/2009

MGoPoints: 46190

DonAZ

January 1st, 2017 at 9:45 AM ^

Agree that nominally it should not make a difference.  But it's a different era now than even 10 years ago, and the playoff structure has really focused things on the top four and the three games those top four play.

Just a gut feel ... I tend to be a bit cynical, so I may be wrong about this.  But my gut tells me we've turned the corner and we're heading towards a focus on the playoffs to the exclusion of everything else.

Joined: 12/05/2011

MGoPoints: 16679

ijohnb

January 1st, 2017 at 12:51 PM ^

think there is more too it than that. I feel like ESPN and the sponsors are doing one hell of a job convincing people that the other bowls still matter but it is an illusion and it is not going to last. Now the precedent has been set that not only are scholarship players allowed to skip the games but almost encouraged to as "the smart thing to do." The bowls are in trouble. They have propped up the NY6 as being "related" to the Playoff but they aren't and it will become transparent soon. The truth is, the way it had been structured, the two things really can't co-exist in this way. I think the college football post season will look entirely different in ten years. I think the Rose and perhaps the Sugar or Cotton will still be played but as kind of stand alone events unrelated to what will be an expanded playoff, with those select bowls that remain perhaps involving service academies and/or Ivy League Schools. Things change and not all good things last forever. They really have to all in with a playoff now, IMO. What they have right now is half baked, but baked too far to stop cooking.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

LSAClassOf2000

January 1st, 2017 at 9:28 AM ^

At least to me, not only have they become less meaningful but it has become more apparent, as a result, just how much of a money grab for sponsors nearly all of them are. The fact that these companies that sponsor bowls seem to want the exposure at the expense of attendance or even a quality game and are OK with teams taking a bath on these games rings terrible in my head - just too many games for too few really good matchups, IMHO. Indeed, I watched fewer outside of the playoffs and our game this year as opposed to last year and that trend will likely continue.

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130608

DonAZ

January 1st, 2017 at 10:04 AM ^

The fact that these companies that sponsor bowls seem to want the exposure at the expense of attendance or even a quality game

At some point the economics of this will catch up with the sponsors.  At some point the money teams will demand to travel and play will be greater than the value of the sponsorship.  This will affect the lesser bowls first, then the bigger non-playoff bowls later.

(As an aside, I've been searching around for attendance stats for some of these bowl games, and I'm coming up empty.  I wonder if that's a case of "Nobody cares, so why bother reporting it?" or "It's embarrassing, so don't report it.")

EDIT -- so I found an article on attendance (link here). Numbers are not horrible, but I suspect the reported attendance is somewhat more than the actual butts-in-seats.  There seems to be a trend to creating "regional bowls" so "local" teams play to boost attendance.  That may be the best way to continue these lesser bowls.

Joined: 12/05/2011

MGoPoints: 16679

M Go Dead

January 1st, 2017 at 10:31 AM ^

TV ratings are more important than attendance for these games.  Those numbers won't drop until overall interest in college football drops, and that would mean there are bigger issues at hand.  Because what else are people watching on a Tuesday night in late December. 

Joined: 07/23/2013

MGoPoints: 3550

gh81

January 1st, 2017 at 9:33 AM ^

What if Pepper's had played RB here instead of D. After the loss, a lot of people said we need a D Cook type player to get over the hump. We had that type of player, but had him at another position. Would his play making ability at RB compensated for the down grade that would have happened at LB this year? If he had been at RB all along would recruiting priorities have changed over the last 2 cycles?




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 08/22/2011

MGoPoints: 141

gh81

January 1st, 2017 at 1:00 PM ^

Pretty funny.  My post was probably a little dumb, and worded wrong.  It was more in reference to people above bailing on Peppers and people in other threads wishing we had that game changing running back.  I was just wondering if maybe he could have been used different and had even more success.  

Joined: 08/22/2011

MGoPoints: 141

Epic-Blue

January 1st, 2017 at 12:36 PM ^

Peppers should have been a RB from the day he stepped foot on campus. Don't you guys remember his senior highlights at RB? He was the best RB New Jersey history. One of the most dynamic players ever to come out of high school in the past decade. Our back field should of looked like this; Jabrill at RB and Smith at Fullback. His athletic talent was underutilized the day he walked through Schembechler Hall. He was the playmaker we desperately needed on offense, yet the staff thought his skill set was apparently better at Sam LB.....



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 10/06/2013

MGoPoints: 920

AmayzNblue

January 1st, 2017 at 9:21 AM ^

Agree that heisman should wait for bowl games to be played, but to say Peppers should win is being a bit homerish. At this point, I would say Dalvin cook should get it because he is the best RB in the land and can take over a game.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/10/2015

MGoPoints: 5016