Nah.. I just think Stanford's a better team. If we're talking easy, I'd say OU over UConn. Or Boise over Utah.

Wonder whatever happened to him? Maybe he is carrying groceries somewhere.

I would not look at the Heiesman for future NFL greats. If you look at the list the name are better known for what they have done off the field. Some wish they were know for supermarket greatness. (O.J.)

True that many Heisman winners were busts or never even made it in the NFL (Archie Griffin, Weinke, Gino Torretta, Andre Ware, etc.), but plenty of NFL greats were Heisman winners too (O.J., Paul Hornung, Tim Brown, Billy Sims, Marcus Allen, Tony Dorsett, etc.).

As the Heisman should be the best of the best of College Football there has been a lack of NFL numbers being put up since Barry Sanders in 1988, Since Marcus Allen almost 30 years ago only Sanders lived up to his hype. Some were good but not the great that was the expectation.

I'd agree that Heisman winners of the last 20 years haven't been as productive in the NFL as in the years before that.

Some earned more during college than after.

Too many QBs (particularly "system" QBs) winning the award nowadays. I think that's the problem.

And they are to small (in weight) to make it in the NFL.

When Ndamokung Suh didn't win the Heisman, you could just mark it down: no defensive player (at least no defensive player who doesn't do some special teams returning and/or play some offense on the side) is ever going to win the Heisman. And that's ludicrous.

Did you think Suh should have won the Heisman?

Absolutely. Not to disparage Mark Ingram, he had a very good year, but i wasn't even sure he was the best running back in the country. Ndamokung Suh was unquestionably the best defensive tackle i've seen in college football in 30 years and impacted the game more than any player i saw last year.

Agree - Ingram won because he was the starting tailback for Bama. Even Bama fans weren't entirely sure that he was the most talented tailback on that team. If Richardson had gotten the number of carries that Ingram had...

Now, rj, did you think Woodson should have won the Heistman™ in 1997?

::evil grin in anticipation of perhaps getting this thread moved to the Contro Cooler::

All the media hype seems to go to the offensive players. They would be nothing if they didn't have a good offensive line (and you never hear about them) or a good defense.

Bobby...i have a memory disorder...if it happened from 1975-1985, i probably remember it and if it happened a year or two ago, i probably remember it. I remember, of course, that Woodson won the Heisman, but i don't recall off the top of my head who else was in the running that year. (I'm pretty sure no OU guys were in the running then, since OU wasn't really playing football then with John Blake running the show, so i'm safe there.:)) I don't remember being overly impressed with Woodson though which again makes me mad....in a year when Suh was so clearly the best defensive player in America, and so clearly the best defensive lineman since Lee Roy Selmon in the college game, why did they give it to a nice running back from Alabama?

Woodson edged out Peyton Manning in 1997.

They were not going to give it to one of Archies boys

Manning was the clear front-runner for basically the entire season. It seemed that the Heisman was a foregone conclusion, there was little interest in Heisman talk at all, then all of a sudden, Woodson returned a punt for a touchdown and things got interesting again. You have to hand it to ESPN, though - it had to be one of their most watched awards show ever...

That's what is so goofy. The one time a defensive guy gets it, it's a guy who didn't even deserve it.

That's what I was getting at. If you applied the same arguments that were made for Woodson in 97, Champ Bailey (who actually played both ways at UGA and wasn't just a cameo receiver) should have won hands down in 98. I think the criteria (or at least the talking points of those who get paid to talk about it) change from year to year as needed to generate interest.

Agreed, but without punt returns and the occasional turn as a wide receiver, i don't think a defensive guy is ever gonna win one. For Suh to have "deserved" to win it in the media's eyes, he woulda had to have had 3 or 4 pick sixes/fumble returns for TD (which is crazy to expect of a defensive tackle).

Just heard that 5 Ohio St Buckeyes, including Terelle Pryor, will be suspended for five games next season, for trading their signatures for tattoos. They will be allowed to play in this year's Sugar Bowl.

Not sure what is more troubling, that college football players are not allowed to barter or trade their possessions (it's not like they traded their signatures to a booster for an Escalade). Or that they will be allowed to play in the bowl game, and their penalty won't start until next season (I assume to appease the bowl people that pay millions to college football to put on these games).

funny that you bring up the millions for bowl games...bloomberg has a wonderful article on how many of the schools actually lose money to attend, yet go anyway...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23...eed-payout.html

I don't think keeping the academically ineligible player for LSU out of the Cotton Bowl will hurt income or attendance, so I am ok with him staying home....

A&M needs more than Ridlay to be out to stand a chance...I heard they were building a bonfire the night before to celebrate