Showing posts with label Heisman Trophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heisman Trophy. Show all posts
Friday, December 11, 2015
Heisman Trophy Prediction
Well the player I would have voted for, Florida State back Dalvin Cook, did not even make the cut for New York City. Oh well. Of the remaining three, Stanford's Christian McCaffrey, Clemson's Deshaun Watson and Alabama's Derrick Henry, I would pick Watson as he elevates that team to championship contender. My prediction on who will win is different, however, as I believe Henry will take home the trophy as he did the Maxwell.
Monday, December 13, 2010
View From Bennett Avenue
Every time I go to events honoring football greats the thank you speeches inevitably touch on the crucial role played by parents in the development of each athlete. The sacrifices and lessons imparted each shaped these individuals as much as god-given talent. And so it is a bit sad that the past two Heisman winners could not share the moment in person with their fathers--fathers who both loved their sons--for negative reasons. Hopefully this trend will not continue.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Heisman Chatter
Unless something stunning happens soon, the truth about Cam Newton will not be known by the time votes are due. That is a shame because voters understandably are torn about picking the best player or picking the best player who will not one day have to give back the trophy.
With his performance in the Auburn rally against Alabama, Newton wrapped up any "most outstanding player" awards out there. The Heisman is a different story thanks to the troubles of 2005 winner Reggie Bush. And all of the evidence out there points to Newton being guilty. He is not even defending himself, but keeping quiet. And no one has proven to me that the growing number of people with information about attempts to sell Newton's services to Mississippi State have a reason to lie. The Bulldogs are building a nice program under head coach Dan Mullen. Why risk a good situation with a host of made-up stories about a guy playing for Auburn?
Of course there are plenty of voters who believe that Newton should have been able to sell his services. And others who do not care what the best player does off the field as long as he is the best player on it (even if he cheated to become the best although that does not seem to apply here).
Me? I'd vote for Kellen Moore.
With his performance in the Auburn rally against Alabama, Newton wrapped up any "most outstanding player" awards out there. The Heisman is a different story thanks to the troubles of 2005 winner Reggie Bush. And all of the evidence out there points to Newton being guilty. He is not even defending himself, but keeping quiet. And no one has proven to me that the growing number of people with information about attempts to sell Newton's services to Mississippi State have a reason to lie. The Bulldogs are building a nice program under head coach Dan Mullen. Why risk a good situation with a host of made-up stories about a guy playing for Auburn?
Of course there are plenty of voters who believe that Newton should have been able to sell his services. And others who do not care what the best player does off the field as long as he is the best player on it (even if he cheated to become the best although that does not seem to apply here).
Me? I'd vote for Kellen Moore.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
View From Bennett Avenue
One of the worst aspects of shipping something is finding a box that fits. And so I can empathize with Reggie Bush as he struggles to return the Heisman Trophy he won less than five years ago. Fed Ex, UPS or regular mail? How much insurance? The process is much tougher than the UCLA defenses he faced in the day. If he is really in a bind Bush can call Southern Cal and ask them how they shipped back their copy of the trophy, which they did back in July.
Should he have given it back? He really did not have much of a choice once the Heisman Trust--and no that is not the name of a failed savings and loan--announced that the award is meant only for eligible players. So once the NCAA declared Bush ineligible retroactively for what he and his family accepted from sports marketers, he was ineligible to win the award that he already had won. It is dumb, of course, but a rule is a rule.
You see the thing about the Heisman is that people in charge of maintaining its standing as the premier individual trophy in all of American sports feel that it is much more than a most outstanding player award. It is meant to honor the great player who best represents the sport. Bush is an interesting test of this in that he not only was a brilliant football player but an outstanding example of what is good about athletics--on the field at least. He worked hard and was the true leader of that record-setting offense (based on the pro careers of Leinart, White and Jarrett, Bush deserves two Heismans). Of course, he felt that his talents deserved compensation. That he accepted so much and then continued to deny responsibility despite overwhelming evidence against him was as much of a problem in the end for Bush as the technicality of him being an ineligible player the year he won the award. So while he was the best player that season--and that should not be questioned even if the runner-up easily won the MOP award in their bowl match-up--he cannot keep the trophy. It is rather cut and dry.
Bush also suffers from being the third winner of the award from USC to go on to embarrass the Trust. We all know about O.J., but even 1978 winner Charles White, the great tailback from the John Robinson days had to auction off his copy of his Heisman to pay off a tax debt.
Bush's failings coming on top of the problems of other winners should highlight the need to eliminate the sanctimonious element from the trophy. It is hard enough deciding who is the best individual in a team sport played by thousands without checking if a guy took cash or fit the profile of someone who will commit heinous crimes in the future. Most voters now just go with the best player approach. But a Trust is a Trust, especially when the trust is broken.
Should he have given it back? He really did not have much of a choice once the Heisman Trust--and no that is not the name of a failed savings and loan--announced that the award is meant only for eligible players. So once the NCAA declared Bush ineligible retroactively for what he and his family accepted from sports marketers, he was ineligible to win the award that he already had won. It is dumb, of course, but a rule is a rule.
You see the thing about the Heisman is that people in charge of maintaining its standing as the premier individual trophy in all of American sports feel that it is much more than a most outstanding player award. It is meant to honor the great player who best represents the sport. Bush is an interesting test of this in that he not only was a brilliant football player but an outstanding example of what is good about athletics--on the field at least. He worked hard and was the true leader of that record-setting offense (based on the pro careers of Leinart, White and Jarrett, Bush deserves two Heismans). Of course, he felt that his talents deserved compensation. That he accepted so much and then continued to deny responsibility despite overwhelming evidence against him was as much of a problem in the end for Bush as the technicality of him being an ineligible player the year he won the award. So while he was the best player that season--and that should not be questioned even if the runner-up easily won the MOP award in their bowl match-up--he cannot keep the trophy. It is rather cut and dry.
Bush also suffers from being the third winner of the award from USC to go on to embarrass the Trust. We all know about O.J., but even 1978 winner Charles White, the great tailback from the John Robinson days had to auction off his copy of his Heisman to pay off a tax debt.
Bush's failings coming on top of the problems of other winners should highlight the need to eliminate the sanctimonious element from the trophy. It is hard enough deciding who is the best individual in a team sport played by thousands without checking if a guy took cash or fit the profile of someone who will commit heinous crimes in the future. Most voters now just go with the best player approach. But a Trust is a Trust, especially when the trust is broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)