OT: Heisman Presentation Thread

Submitted by Wolverine Incognito on December 12th, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Here ya go, post some thoughts on the presentation. Me first. Does any one know the name of the song they played for the introduction at the very beginning?



December 12th, 2009 at 8:18 PM ^

5 min of highlights for each player. 5 mins of hoopla. 5 mins for the presentation. BOOM. Great show. Instead we get to hear all this BS of coaches saying their player is the best. Shocker. How sweet would that be if Big Will ends up being anywhere near as dominating as Suh?

the_big_house 500th

December 12th, 2009 at 8:24 PM ^

Colt or Ingram win it. I'm a McCoy so seeing a first ever McCoy Heisman Trophy winner would be awesome! But I'd love to see Ingram win it too. Good luck to all finalists. One of these men are going to go down in college football history and on their way into the passage of becoming a legend.


December 13th, 2009 at 9:25 AM ^

You mean stood out positively or negatively? He had 30 rushing yards, while their 2nd string RB looked much better than Ingram.

The Heisman is officially a joke now. I like Ingram but to say he was the most outstanding college player this year is laughable. Just that fact that Suh didn't win made the whole thing a joke.


December 12th, 2009 at 8:58 PM ^

I like, other then maybe Suh Ingram deserved it. I still thought Spiller might have deserved it, but he didn't get invited, so what do I know.


December 12th, 2009 at 8:58 PM ^

I was really hoping Suh would pull it out, and kinda disappointed when he didnt win it....but watching Ingrams reaction, I can't be too upset...means the world to him


December 12th, 2009 at 9:02 PM ^

worst pick ever. But not a very solid one. Bama's D was suffocating and having Julio Jones on your team opens up a lot of running ability. I would like to see how many votes were entered before Suh's game against Texas. Either way the fact that Suh came in 4th is pretty ridiculous. They should rename the Heisman so that it represents the best skill position player, if it was actually the best player Suh should have won.


December 12th, 2009 at 9:11 PM ^

I've been saying this for years. The Heisman is the hype award, that is it. The fact that so much hay was made over the regional voting should point to the fact that this is a fucking popularity contest. Dumb. Congratulations Mark Ingram, Homecoming King!


December 12th, 2009 at 9:11 PM ^

no one was outstanding. it's not like gerhart was clearly the a-1 choice. the a-1 choice was a guy who realistically never had a chance at all.

so let's not get crazy with this worst pick ever stuff. eric crouch was standing up there after all.


December 12th, 2009 at 10:07 PM ^

should have zero to do with his merit as a heisman winner, otherwise Tebow or McCoy should clearly have won tonight.

In 2001 when he won he had 1500 yards passing, 7 TDs to 10 interceptions, completing 55% of his passes. he ran for 1100 yards and 18 TDs which helps offset some of those awful passing stats but it shouldn't override it.

for comparison, pat white in 2007 threw for 1700 yards at 66% completions, 14 TDs to 4 Ints, and 1300 yards rushing.

i agree that pro success shouldn't matter but crouch essentially won the heisman due to a trick play where he caught a TD pass.


December 12th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^

The Heisman presentation is the single most boring television hour of the entire year. I said a couple years ago that I was never going to watch it again(unless a Michigan player is there).


December 12th, 2009 at 10:01 PM ^

I wanted McCoy to win it, but I think it will benefit Ingram more than any of the others. Why?

Tebow: has a great life ahead of him. When the NFL doesn't work out, Urban Meyer will hire him as his eventual successor. Unless he ends up as a televangelist.

McCoy: Charismatic. I would imagine that he has a nice career in business or TV, making use of his sports management major. Also has Tebow-ian reputation in the Texas religious community. Colt McCoy won't be hurting for money anytime soon.

Gerhart: Degree from Stanford: 'nuff said.

Suh: Can't miss NFL superstar, also looks the part for his major: construction management. If NFL doesn't work out, will have no problem supervising and motivating construction workers.

Ingram: Lack of eloquence, jailbird for role model, rattlesnake for head coach. RB's may have shortest "shelf life" of NFL positions. Status as Heisman winner is a nice "fallback" that guarantees plenty of networking opportunities and "work" on the banquet circuit.

So, really, who needed this award the most? My vote definitely goes to Ingram.

I guess congratulations are in order.


December 13th, 2009 at 12:52 AM ^

Hmm, let's see. Go after Ingram for "lack of eloquence" - as if he's expected to deliver a State of the Union address in the biggest minute of his twenty years -check

Go after Ingram for his incarcerated father -check

Go after Saban because he just rubs you the wrong way - check

Hey Tater, must feel good to know that same in-eloquent kid is beloved by thousands, while only a handful of people ever have and ever will even like you?


December 12th, 2009 at 10:56 PM ^

if he played for USC he would have won it by a landslide. Such a joke. I kinda knew that they were going to give it to Ingram when they started with that "No one from Alabama has ever won the Heisman" garbage.


December 13th, 2009 at 12:25 AM ^

It really didn't surprise me, but it did disappoint me. The Heisman is an award just like the BCS is a Championship game.

Ingram had a great year, but it's his association with the program he is on that won it. Like was said earlier he wasn't even the best RB there.

What is the criteria for the Heisman anymore? Does anyone want to set in stone what this criteria may be?? Obviously no one is following it.


December 13th, 2009 at 12:33 AM ^

wish the awards would go out after the bowl season. How many times has the Heisman winner been absolutely flat in the bowl game?? Especially in the case of the Heisman it's pretty much always given to a guy on a highly ranked team. Chances are pretty good they will be playing someone solid so why not include the bowl performance as part of the criteria?