Is Mark Ingram destined for greatness now that he has won Heisman Trophy, or will the Alabama running back be added to the list of forgettable winners of the stiff-arm trophy?
For every Earl Campbell, Herschel Walker or Bo Jackson there is a Gino Torretta, Rashaan Salaam or Jason White.
Ingram was sincere and humble when he won the award and you have to feel good for the kid, but an outsider has to wonder how many of the Heisman voters saw Ndamukong Suh or Toby Gerhart play?
Suh finished fourth behind Colt McCoy, the Texas quarterback he terrorized the previous Saturday. Gerhart was consistently great, but many voters likely saw him play only once — Nov. 28 vs. Notre Dame.
Meanwhile, nearly every one of Alabama's games were nationally telecast, giving Ingram a decided advantage. How many times did CBS or ESPN remind viewers that Alabama was without a Heisman winner? It seemingly became the determining factor in the vote.
Bart Wright of the Greenville News, for one, believes journalists have no place voting for the Heisman winner.
He writes: "We’re talking about a vote whose outcome will bring potential millions in endorsements and would have a direct impact on the player’s negotiations for his first professional contract. We're participating in something that will have profound financial benefits to an individual.
"That's journalism?
"Maybe I missed the class in college where they said, as an impartial observer, it's still part of a journalist's job to play a role in deciding who wins individual awards in sports and then write opinions about those outcomes.
"Is there a better example of a conflict of interest?
"Take it out of sports and consider politics in the same way. Would it be sound journalism for all the country's political writers to vote on a poll — with their names attached for public scrutiny — that ranked the leading presidential candidates in order of their perceived worthiness in that role?
"Sorry, I've never understood why some think it's perfectly acceptable to play a central role in these popular votes while maintaining a veneer of neutrality before and after the votes."
Yeah, i think Richardson was a better back for bama, that and Ingram getting thumped by AU all day til he finally gave up showed me that MI was probably not the best pick. Could Colt possibly show everyone how silly the pick was in January??
Posted by: B | December 14, 2009 at 06:44 AM
The only thing Colt will do in January is change his drawers again after the Alabama defense has their way with Texas.
Suh was the best player out of those four, and it's pathetic that he was dropped below the overrated QB that he destroyed on a national stage.
Oh well, come draft day, Colt will likely have to wear Depends when Mr. Suh's name is called, just out of the sheer terror that he wrought on McCoy that night. That, and McCoy will be upset with Suh having more zeroes to the left of the decimal than he will with their NFL paychecks.
And honestly, which of the two (McCoy or Suh) will wash out in the NFL first? Smart money is on the overrated kid from Texas, but he'll have to drown against 'Bama first.
Posted by: Matt | December 14, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Has Bart Wright never wrote a piece about how an individual player changed a game? How outstanding their stars were? Never shined the light on a single star? Because all those things can directly affect endorsements and contract negotiations. I find that part of his argument paper thin, at best.
Posted by: Anonymoose | December 15, 2009 at 07:57 PM
Man. I should read what I write before I hit submit. "Has Bart Wright never wrote..." My copy editor would kill me if he saw that.
Posted by: Anonymoose | December 15, 2009 at 07:58 PM