Thread: Heisman Trophy

Pac-10 is deemed competitive if USC doesn't dominate.

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Yes, I am a Longhorn fan. That being said we want to not vote for Colt because of one game he still won versus one of the better defenses in the country, or because he wont be a good pro. How did danny wuerful win a heisman then?

He doesnt get my vote, because because I feel strongly that Jordan Shipley is more of a reason for the success of Texas. Ingram ran all over the SEC with an inexperienced QB. Ingram gets my vote.


Not to mention, McCoy played terribly in a big game against a great defense. His numbers look great because of terrible defenses.

McCoy is anything but inexperienced. He was part of one of the best highschool teams in the country out of Southlake Carroll.

If a defensive player could ever be considered by the voters, you have to look at Ndamukong Suh. He will be a terror in the pro's.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Originally Posted by CivilWars

The argument can be made both ways about the Pac 10. All the teams are so good that any team can win any week, or all the teams are so average that there is no dominant team(s) to rely on. Odds are when all of the teams are average, and seeing that the eventual champ lost to Boise, most people that are not Pac 10 homers will say the league was down this year. If one team was 11-0, 11-1, 12-0, whatever it would be a totally different story.

Boise isn't a weak team, they've proved it before. and i don't grade a conference based on One or two teams, and if you want to say "up or down" then The pac-10 is up, having 5 teams in the running, and some of the meh or bad teams this year almost beat LSU and Georgia, and beat the Big 10 champs.

The SEC is down, why? they had 3 good teams at best all season. Big 12 is down as they had 3 maybe 4 good teams this year. it could be said the Big 10 is up with 4 teams ranked, and 3 good teams (with 2 in the BCS), ACC is down etc.

Boise may very well be the best team in college football (But we will never now). However they play no one and the nobodies they do play, score on them like crazy. Boise only ever beats big time teams with 6+ weeks to prepare (BCS games and playing Oregon first game instead of mid season).

Boise could be as good as USC, Oregon, Florida, Alabama, Texas, etc... But they never have to play good teams consistently. Sure they may win bowl games, but I don't believe they would even be in a position to play in the BCS if they played SEC, Pac10 and big12 teams every week.

Teams like Bama, Florida, USC, Oregon, Texas, etc... deserve to be in the bigger bowls because they take the bigger risks and play the better teams consistently.

That's my opinion about Boise.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I agree with Rock. Also, as unfortunate as it may be most people, including those claiming to be experts, base a conference on their best 2-3 teams. That is why everyone thinks the SEC is so strong this year, because of Bama and UF. That is also why many think the Pac-10 is down because they have no dominant, top 5, teams like USC has been for the last several years with teams like Cal following right behind.

I totally agree with this statement, and I go to a Pac-10 school. Put us up against an SEC, and probably most big 12 teams, this year, even one of the weaker ones, and our schools would probably lose 9 times out of 10. We're all just sort of average this year, on some days some teams play well, on some days others, but never one consistently. For example, no matter how good a day Gerhart has, I'll bet you Oklahoma still runs over Stanford in the Sun Bowl.

I vote other for Jerrod Johnson.