Ouch! Heisman voter brutal response
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
Yea unbelievably cocky and all that.....BUT he did get screwed. I might not have liked it if he had won, but he was hands down the best player out of that bunch up there given the standards that have been set over the years.
Anytime you see two players from the same team in the top 5, then they're just showing the media/voter bias for that league (Big Ten/OSU) which is the same reason the other guy won (IU).
Anytime you see two players from the same team in the top 5, then they're just showing the media/voter bias for that league (Big Ten/OSU) which is the same reason the other guy won (IU).
There's a long string of disappointed Heisman finalists who seemingly got screwed. Doesn't in any way excuse the behavior. His behavior in losing only further justifies him losing.
The voters full comment:
"Had this been the 19-year-old Johnny Manziel — a Pavia confidant, by the way — an 'F all the voters' post on social media would've at least been less surprising, if no less classless. But after six years in college, you'd think Pavia would've signed up for at least one course in humility by now. The kid-blows-off-steam defense also fails to hold up when one considers the dozens of kids who didn't; decades worth of disappointed Heisman finalists who managed to leave New York City without leaving behind their dignity like Pavia did."
Still love that 6 years in college dig. Priceless.
"Had this been the 19-year-old Johnny Manziel — a Pavia confidant, by the way — an 'F all the voters' post on social media would've at least been less surprising, if no less classless. But after six years in college, you'd think Pavia would've signed up for at least one course in humility by now. The kid-blows-off-steam defense also fails to hold up when one considers the dozens of kids who didn't; decades worth of disappointed Heisman finalists who managed to leave New York City without leaving behind their dignity like Pavia did."
Still love that 6 years in college dig. Priceless.
It was maybe the weakest field I can remember in recent memory. If it was possible to not give it to anyone this year I would’ve done that. There was no player that made you say “wow.” Connor Shaw was better than Pavia.
Yes, there was no clear-cut frontrunner. You could make a compelling case for Pavia. You could make a compelling case for Mendoza. Bottom line, Mendoza is the QB for the #1 team in the nation who beat Oregon on the road and OSU and shut them both down.
That Pavia did it at Vandy is totally negated by the fact that Mendoza plays for IU, who has at least as bad of a football history as Vandy, and probably worse.
Mendoza had a better completion percentage, more TDs (passing + rushing), fewer ints. Pavia threw for 212 more yards. Could Pavia have won? Sure. SHOULD he have won? Not necessarily. There was no statistical reason he had to win.
One comment you made, made me pause.
"given the standards that have been set over the years."
Just going off memory, fwiw, but I always thought the standards were "the best player on one of the best teams". Not that i agree with it, but i always assumed you took the qb, rb or sometimes exceptional wr from one of the top title contenders and called it a day.
Unless there was some huge outlier, like lamar jackson.
Or am I misremembering?
No, that is correct. Mendoza was a statistically better QB than Pavia (Pavia's only real edge was rushing yards). That Mendoza played for the top team in the country sealed the deal. Like you said, unless there's just a player who is so utterly dominant that you have no choice but to give it to him, it's usually going to go to the best player on one of the top teams.
Pavia got all the "and he's doing it at Vanderbilt!" buzz, but IU is at least as bad as Vandy historically, if not worse (they have worse all-time win percentage).
I think it is supposed to be the "best player in college football". The team's success is not supposed to be a factor. This hasn't been followed for a long time. In 1986, Gordie Lockbaum proved that the Heisman trophy was really awarded to the player with the most media hype and best sports information department that lobbied for a player. Vinny Testaverde won the Heisman in 1986 and was probably the least deserving player to ever win it. Lockbaum was fifth in Heisman voting.
Lockbaum played for Holy Cross, not exactly a traditional football power. However, Lockbaum played RB, DB and also played on special teams. There were many games where Lockbaum played almost every snap of the game. He not only played but was actually good. In 1986 he rushed for 827 yds on 144 caries, caught passes for 860 yds on 57 completions, had 46 tackles, 2 fumble recoveries and 3 interceptions and returned 21 kickoffs for 452 yds.
Lockbaum did not act like a spoiled brat when he didn't win.
I wondered about the standards too. I’m not sure if there is any sort of criteria or guidance for the voters in helping to determine “the best”. It always goes to an offensive skill position, except for Woodsen. Who’s to say some OG isn’t the best player in football? Or if it’s truly the best why didn’t Clowney get enough votes to attend the ceremony his sophomore year?
All of what you say is why the Heisman isn't the great award it used to be. Disney pretty well decides who the candidates are at the beginning of the season and then the media follows those players all season, dropping the players who have a bad game or don't live up to the hype. Then, the voters pick one, usually the one Disney has pushed the hardest and the ESPN talking heads have praised the most.
Offensive skill position players generate the most explosive highlights. It is sort of like the saying about baseball "chicks dig the long ball".
QB and RB have won 79 of the 90 Heismans. QBs touch the ball every snap they're in the game. RBs are second in that category. A defender may be a better player, but it's hard to argue from the "impact on the game" when one of the players touches the ball every single snap they're in the game.
No dedicated defensive player has ever won. Travis Hunter and Charles Woodson are both CBs who also played WR (Woodson also returned kicks). Even an all-time defensive player, might directly impact a handful of plays in a game. Even if you're a future HOF lockdown CB, you're not involved in most plays of the game.
So, just historically speaking, the standard is obviously offensive players b/c they are the most involved in the game on a snap-to-snap basis.
It's not a new thing, though. The very first winner was a RB at a time when there was very little offense in college football. The first defensive player to win was Woodson in '97, and even he played some WR and returned kicks. No dedicated defensive player has ever won it. Of the 90 Heisman awards, 2 have gone to players who played on defense.
There seems to be a misconception that the Heisman has changed over the years, simply going to the most electric player with the best offensive stats, but it's always been that way.
The logic, of course, is that offense players on a snap-to-snap, game-to-game basis have the most direct impact on the game simply b/c they touch the ball the most (by far the most).
Some fans seem to want the Heisman to be something that it never was.
All true. Maybe they should simply say the Heisman goes to the best offensive player in college football instead of saying it goes to the "top player in college football".
Are there defined criteria for the award? The only thing I can find on the Heisman site is a statement about the award going to the most outstanding player in college football. That could be very broadly interpreted.
I'm not even sure it goes to the best player, if you use NFL success as a barometer. There are frequently players who have better NFL projections than the Heisman winner.
It's probably just easiest to define success for QBs and RBs because you've got hard stats. Maybe you're the best CB of all time so teams just don't throw your direction. Or maybe you're a legendary DL, so teams just double team you and run plays away from your direction. Well, you're not gonna put up much in the way of stats so it's much more subjective to define your impact on the game, even if every objectively knows you're a great player.
Yeah. Mendoza and Pavia were statistically comparable, but Mendoza had better overall QB stats. The one category where Pavia had the real edge was rushing yards. He had about 200 more passing yards.This is not true. Go look at what the other guys did.
They both did it for historically bad teams.
Mendoza did it for the #1 and only undefeated P4 team.
No brainer really.
If Pavia had won, it would only have been an emotional, feel good thing b/c he plays for Vandy who is viewed as the doormat of all P4 teams, even though IU is historically worse.
Ironic too that Pavia acted like a complete a** when the winner gave one of the classiest and most humble acceptance speeches you could ever hear. I think the right guy won.
You'd like to advise him "read the room, kid."
You'd like to advise him "read the room, kid."
This photo was pretty funny since Pavia listed height is 6'0". Love is also listed at 6'0" and Sayin is 6'1".
I agree, thats what its SUPPOSED to be. I just think its become "pick one of the top teams and name their qb or RB."
I think it just so happens, most years though, that the best player happens to play for one of the best teams.
Maybe, that could be true.
I hesitate to put too much on the player, if hes surrounded by a team that out-talents most or all of his opponents.
But that is so very subjective.
This photo was pretty funny since Pavia listed height is 6'0". Love is also listed at 6'0" and Sayin is 6'1".
The 6'-0" is a typo.
It's supposed to read 5'-6.0"
And Julian Sayin had better stats than both Mendoza & Pavia.
Take a look at his passer rating. I don't care if it is Buckeyes, that's some excellent stats.
Julian Sayin - Ohio State Buckeyes Quarterback - ESPN
View the profile of Ohio State Buckeyes Quarterback Julian Sayin on ESPN. Get the latest news, live stats and game highlights.
www.espn.com
Yeah. Losing the Big 10 championship game probably hurt his cause. but there was too much buzz around the whole IU thing.And Julian Sayin had better stats than both Mendoza & Pavia.
Take a look at his passer rating. I don't care if it is Buckeyes, that's some excellent stats.
Julian Sayin - Ohio State Buckeyes Quarterback - ESPN
View the profile of Ohio State Buckeyes Quarterback Julian Sayin on ESPN. Get the latest news, live stats and game highlights.
IU has the 2nd worst all-time P4 win percentage.