FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Because this is next to Alabama in the loss column. Not fair, i know.

Will admit my bias up front.

From my understanding of the Heisman award and the way the voters tend to cast their ballots it that a player is looked at not just for his overall statistics but his overall contribution/importance to his team and leading them to victories. So wins play into it.

And to be honest. It doesn't hurt Ingram that his father (despite all his legal problems) was a first round draft pick and was a key player in the NY Giants Super Bowl win back in the 80's (?) This brought Mark Jr. to national attention for just signing on to go to play for Nick Saban at Bama. And his playing has kept him in the national spotlight.

I understand the loss thing, don't get me wrong. But the defense is what is winning at Bama not the running game. I also don't think that Ben Tate should be leading the Heisman race either. I think that Tebow and McCoy are the two best candidates assuming that they finish the season off undefeated. Mainly it just bothers me to hear him get so much credit for them being undefeated.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 01:04 PM ET  11.04 by AUTigerfaninTX

I understand the loss thing, don't get me wrong. But the defense is what is winning at Bama not the running game. I also don't think that Ben Tate should be leading the Heisman race either. I think that Tebow and McCoy are the two best candidates assuming that they finish the season off undefeated. Mainly it just bothers me to hear him get so much credit for them being undefeated.

Living in Austin, to be honest until the last game, most have written off McCoy's chances. Texas spent a lot of money last year on pushing him and that is not likely to happen again. He will have to play a whole lot better and consistant to get the press to love him again. And the people that bought t-shirts for McCoy for Heisman don't seem to be willing to go that route again either. (Last year that money went towards what Texas was spending on promoting him for the Heisman.) Unfortunately his year thought good is not great like last year.

the funny thing is about Ingram, when asked who he would vote for Heisman, he made an argument for Rolando McClain.

I've heard of Lars Tate and Larry Tate but who is Ben Tate?

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 02:02 PM ET  11.04 by Dr. B-f-G

I've heard of Lars Tate and Larry Tate but who is Ben Tate?

Ben Tate, Office Running Back.

PSU, I understand that they don't play much competetive football up there so i can understand your lack of knowledge. That also however proves my point to an extent. Flip the two players on the two teams and Tate all of the sudden becomes the heisman candidate. The point is, just because you are the best offensive player on an undefeated team doesn't mean that you should be a leading heisman candidate especially if you aren't even the best player in the conference at your position.

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 02:58 PM ET  11.04 by AUTigerfaninTX

PSU, I understand that they don't play much competetive football up there so i can understand your lack of knowledge. That also however proves my point to an extent. Flip the two players on the two teams and Tate all of the sudden becomes the heisman candidate. The point is, just because you are the best offensive player on an undefeated team doesn't mean that you should be a leading heisman candidate especially if you aren't even the best player in the conference at your position.

lol. zing... First one's free.

And I agree that a great player like Tate gets a raw deal from the current Heisman system.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 03:26 PM ET  11.04 by PSUinHolidaySpirit

And I agree that a great player like Tate gets a raw deal from the current Heisman system.

True - playing well for a very good team matters more than the raw numbers. Ever since Andre Ware in 1989, voters have tried to avoid the stats monster. A player's ability to change the course or set the tone of a game is somewhat intangible, but important, as mentioned about the stadium record for single-game rushing yards against South Carolina, where he carried the offense almost by himself. Other points are valid about his pedigree. The last thing College Football needs is another Heisman bust.

Don't worry: he will not be the first Tide player to win the Heisman - his numbers will lag behind somebody else or they'll just go with default mode and pick someone from Notre Dame. Doh! Wrong Tate!

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 03:56 PM ET  11.04 by RollTide09

Doh! Wrong Tate!

lol, i like that. I am not even hating on Bama, I am just tired of seeing the Heisman get screwed up.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 04:27 PM ET  11.04 by AUTigerfaninTX

lol, i like that. I am not even hating on Bama, I am just tired of seeing the Heisman get screwed up.

What I think is funny is to look at the overall success of Heisman candidates in post season play after they have received the trophy. Tebow being a recent exception. Bradford last year? It's almost a curse. Not sure if I want someone from Bama to get it.

OK, first, let me say that this sounds an awful lot like sour grapes AUTigerfaninTX. As I remember, that is unusual for you.

Let me also say that in no way do I necessarily believe that Ingram is deserving of the Heisman. To be totally honest, I am proud that Alabama has never had a Heisman winner as I firmly believe that success is a team accomplishment, not an individual honor. Without lineman to block for him, he would not have the yards. Without a defense that stuffs opponents, he would not have the opportunities that he has had. However, Mark Ingram IS one of the best running backs in college football. His YAC is mind-boggling. His ability to run stronger as a game progresses is amazing. And there is little doubt in my mind that he has, at times, taken the team upon his shoulders and his determination was directly responsible for several wins.

Now as to why Ingram and not Tate.

1. As PSU eloquently pointed out, Bama is 8-0. Auburn is 6-3. Bama is #3 in the BCS. Auburn is not in the top 20. Alabama is the higher profile team in the national scene.

2. Ingram has had some big games in the national spotlight. Va Tech, Ark, Ole Miss, & TN. In several of those games he was key in the wins as he represented the majority of Bama's offense.

3. Tate is part of an offensive system that features multiple points of attack. It is seen as being a finesse offense with lots of multiple sets. Ingram plays in an offense that's style features pounding the ball between the tackles - often.

4. It is not always about the total yards, but how they were gained. As I mentioned before, Ingram's stats for yards after contact are phenomenal.

5. Opposing teams know that Ingram is going to get the ball often and it is usually between the tackles. Bama has faced a lot of (good) defenses playing 8 man fronts in an attempt to stop the running game. In spite of all that, Ingram has 6.6 ypc, the 7th best average in the nation among RBs with at least 100 carries.

6. And finally, as E stated earlier, by definition the Heisman award is for whomever contributes the most to the success for his team. Undoubtedly, Tebow & McCoy fall into that category, but there is no denying Ingram's importance to his team and his contributions to an undefeated (thus far) season. Does that make him deserving of the Heisman? I don't know. But to me it does make him deserving of being in the conversation.

Does any of this mean that Ben Tate is not a good running back? Absolutely not. Does it make him Heisman-worthy? I don't know. I am most definitely NOT a Heisman watcher, and to be honest, could care less about it. Would I like to see Ingram win it? Yes, he is a great running back and a terrific individual that is very humble and extremely hard-working. And he is the first to say that he is merely part of a larger team. But I would much rather see him have a part in winning the big crystal trophy than the Heisman.

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 12:26 PM ET  11.04 by E in Austin, Texas

Will admit my bias up front. From my understanding of the Heisman award and the way the voters tend to cast their ballots it that a player is looked at not just for his overall statistics but his overall contribution/importance to his team and leading them to victories. So wins play into it.

I agree. It should be about overall imp/contribution.

So shouldn't Nate Davis be awarded a retrograde Heisman for last year?

2008 Ball St with Davis: 12-2
2009 Ball St w/out Davis: 0-8

The Heisman's criteria are a mystery because we have no clear definition of what "the best player in college football" means. I've ranted about this before. This is a classic pointless argument because of the absence of a consensus definition of what the award is for.

We can debate endlessly about what the award should be (or what it shouldn't be), but it seems to mean different things every year, which can be interpreted to indicate that it doesn't mean anything. So why worry about it?

Ben Tate YPC - 5.5. Total TDs rushing 6. Total TDs 6
Mark Ingram YPC 6.6 Total Rushing TDs 8, Total TDs 11.

And you're asking why Ben Tate is not being talked about? Mark has almost twice the TDS. You base it on more yards and yet Ben Tate has played 1 more game? Good grief. I know you want Ben Tate to be better but not just Alabama fans acknowledge Mark Ingram is better.

Also, Mark Ingram has more 10+ yard runs than anyone else.

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 07:08 PM ET  11.04 by ThunderBoomer

The Heisman's criteria are a mystery because we have no clear definition of what "the best player in college football" means. I've ranted about this before. This is a classic pointless argument because of the absence of a consensus definition of what the award is for. We can debate endlessly about what the award should be (or what it shouldn't be), but it seems to mean different things every year, which can be interpreted to indicate that it doesn't mean anything. So why worry about it?

You have a point.

For Heisman candidates, I would keep an eye on the Pitt/ND game. Clausen has a shot but (I hate to say it) Pitts QB Stull is putting up some impressive numbers, and if he continues at this rate, he will get some national pub with remaining games of ND, WVU, and Cincy.

Personally, I think if the Houston guy keeps putting up 500+ yards a game and 5 TDs, he'll probably eventually win it.

Not a bad pick...seems like a pretty good year to stretch beyond the normal choices. IMO, Tebow does not deserve nor does McCoy based on play to date. Of course Bradford is injured. Hard to give Ingram the nod when Bama's MVP is the defense as a collective unit. Clausen could sneak in if he has a field day against Pitt.

QUOTE(#19):

Originally posted 08:49 PM ET  11.04 by PGH Buckeye

Not a bad pick...seems like a pretty good year to stretch beyond the normal choices. IMO, Tebow does not deserve nor does McCoy based on play to date. Of course Bradford is injured. Hard to give Ingram the nod when Bama's MVP is the defense as a collective unit. Clausen could sneak in if he has a field day against Pitt.

I don't think it would be that hard, despite what the defense is doing. That's a unit of 11 men with 11 behind them. Mark Ingram is running a lot of his yards without any help. His YAC are insane.