"What have you done for me lately?"--MSM

Someone still reads SI?  You sir, are rare indeed.

Don't let it upset you too much. I can think if a lot worse things out there. Denard will perform just fine.

The reality is, outside the view of maize and blue tainted glasses, Denard has not been a huge offensive force this year in terms of producing at the level he is hyped to.  We can clearly debate the issues surrounding that (scheme, interior line issues, injury, etc).  Fact is we've had a number of low scoring games this year, some TO issues, and more recently Gardner seems to be supplanting Denard.  Denard's injury may also not be fully healed in that it may require surgery and he is pushing it off until after the bowl.

It's not exactly a grevious oversight.  

My guess is he was left off the list due to the uncertainty of where--and for how long--he'll be on the field.  Not saying I agree with SI but I don't think it's completely egregious either.

2¢

I ain't mad at 'em.  They know not what they do.

In all seriousness, i don't care what they think is exciting... I'll be really sad to see him go :-(

at the list, I was thinking they are most likely looking at the players who will be looked at highly from NFL teams.  After looking at the list, I agree, SI writers are morons.  How can you not put Denard on the list?!

Even if he doesnt play QB, you have to put him on here.  Sucks for them, now he is going to torch some game cocks and make the nation remember his stuff.

SI or no SI D. Robinson is going to finish strong! 

The magazine is good for lining the cage or litter box of a pet.  It's thick, and the paper quality is pretty good. 

They watched the Ohio game and saw he won't be playing much after halftime anyways.

...or they know Al Borges too well?

Arguing about lists on the internet is #1 on my internet list of time-wasters.

#1 Arguing about lists

#2 Tim Tebow

#3 Facebook

I feel like this is an overly aggressive post.

This year. No one outside of this fanbase has really cared about his season. Hurts to say, but it's true.

Surely you're not impugning the publication that for some reason employs Mike Rosenberg?!?

Don't worry. Braxton Miller isn't on this list, either.

That hurts my feelings and cuts deep. I'll be stewing about this all day now.

Posts like these truly leave me in amazement at the things that people get upset over.  I mean who could possible give two shits over a list a dying publication produced for the sole purpose of generating content and hopefully page hits.  Nothing more.  It's not like they did exhuastive research on the topic over the past year and published their "top players to watch manifesto" - rather some editor turned to a writer and basically said "I need 1000 words on something to fill up this space over here.  Look at the bowls and come up with something"  Then, over the next 45 minutes or so the writer probably Google searched each team and found a player to profile.  That's about it.

but I still prefer Sports Illustrated to ESPN. I think it's a generational thing; folks over 45 prefer print to TV or online material. Always loved Frank DeFord, Dan Jenkins and Paul Zimmerman, among many others. 

To respond to your original comment, sadly, few people outside of our fan base pay attention to Denard unless we're seriously winning, and let's be frank, this year has been meh at best. Is it difficult to get excited about a center, or an offensive lineman in general? Sure. But Jones plays for one of the elite teams in the country. And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, yes, we're still an elite program, but UM just hasn't had a particularly outstanding season this year. If we'd won those games against ND, Nebraska and Ohio, Denard would certainly be on the list. 

to hearing some "Florida" being spoken after the game by Denard as the game's MVP back in his home state.

Denard doesn't need SI's recognition in order to qualify as an exciting player.