Mark Ingram wins Heisman Trophy.

[Mike.357]

I am gonna do all you Bama fans a favor. The teams I root for hardly ever win the big one. Once in a blue moon maybe. So I am gonna root for Texas.

Hook 'em Horns!

[Volzfan]

1. Toby Gerhart, Stanford: The senior is second in the nation in rushing (1,736 yards) and first in scoring (26 touchdowns). He never had a bad game and he had plenty of good ones, especially down the stretch. In the Cardinal's last four games, when the aches and pains of the autumn have accumulated, Gerhart averaged 29 carries and 185.5 yards per game. Want a tiebreaker? He is an outstanding student. At Stanford. Bottom line: Gerhart has the best stats and played the most consistent football of any of the Heisman contenders.

2. Mark Ingram, Alabama: Like Gerhart, the Alabama sophomore is a money player who shrugged off the first contact. Like Gerhart, Ingram got stronger as games got longer. In the fourth quarter against South Carolina, Ingram got every one of the 68 yards the Crimson Tide needed to score the touchdown that put the Gamecocks away, 20-6. Ingram rushed for 1,542 yards, an Alabama record, and 15 touchdowns. He is the best offensive weapon on the No. 1 team in the nation.

Gerhart should have won it. He rushed for nearly 200 yards more and 11 more TD's on a lesser team.

[brooksjr]

Gerhart should have won it. He rushed for nearly 200 yards more and 11 more TD's on a lesser team.

check ingrams stats against ranked teams! that's why he won.

[Mike.357]

Gerhart wins the Walker award as the nation's best RB, yet he somehow loses the Heisman to Ingram, another RB.

Kind of odd.

[mcurrier]

Congrats to Mark Ingram and to all the Bama fans for their first Heisman Trophy winner. He showed alot of class in his acceptance speech.

Wha??? I thought Obama won the Heisman?

[-boatman-]

I am gonna do all you Bama fans a favor. The teams I root for hardly ever win the big one. Once in a blue moon maybe. So I am gonna root for Texas.

Thank you Mike.

[Mike.357]

I thought for sure Forrest Gump won the Heisman

hook em horns!

[USMCJG]

Gerhart wins the Walker award as the nation's best RB, yet he somehow loses the Heisman to Ingram, another RB.

Kind of odd.

The Walker, Maxwell, etc. awards usually go to the best players. The Heisman is much more of a team award. Gerhart clearly had the better season, particularly when you factor in the fact that he was pretty much the lone focus for Stanford's opponents. Without Gerhart, Stanford would have been lucky to go 4-8 instead of 8-4. Alabama only had two games decided by less than 10 pts. all season, against Tennessee and Auburn, and Ingram went for less than 100 yds. in each of those games. Gerhart averaged 150.5 yds./game in games decided by less than 10 pts. And not only did Gerhart rush for 194 more yds. and eleven more touchdowns, he did it in one less game.

I thought Ingram was the third best player invited to the award ceremonies, behind Suh and Gerhart. I think he clearly did deserve the award ahead of McCoy(who was probably the favorite) and Tebow though.

..................................................Gerhart..................Ingram

Yds./Game Season-.......................144.7......................118.6

Yds./Game vs Ranked Opponents-....184.......................165

Yds./Carry vs Ranked Opponents-.....6.46.....................6.44

TDs vs Ranked Opponents-..............11(4 games)..........6(5 games)

As you can see by the above stats, even in big games Gerhart had better numbers.

[G27]

As you can see by the above stats, even in big games Gerhart had better numbers.

Except that, according to the NCAA, Alabama played the 2nd toughest schedule in FBS while Stanford played the 81st toughest schedule (out of 120).

Kinda need to keep those numbers in perspective...

[USMCJG]

Except that, according to the NCAA, Alabama played the 2nd toughest schedule in FBS while Stanford played the 81st toughest schedule (out of 120).

Kinda need to keep those numbers in perspective...

Yes, Alabama had a tougher schedule. They also had a much better defense and more offensive weapons than Stanford could ever hope to have. Their opponents also had to be concerned with more than just Ingram, whereas all anyone really had to do to beat Stanford was stop Gerhart. Every Stanford opponent knew that and they still couldn't do it. Just a little more perspective. Edited December 14, 2009 by USMCJG

[G27]

Every Stanford opponent knew that and they still couldn't do it.

Well, when you play an easy schedule, your opponents suck. No big surprise.

See? We can do this all day!

The point is, numbers can be twisted to mean what you want, but Ingram performed at a high level in the biggest games, against he best defenses in the country, while playing the second toughest schedule in the country and sharing carries in what is likely the deepest backfield in the country. He deserves it as much as anyone, as the Heisman voters already attested.

[Volzfan]

Yes, Alabama had a tougher schedule. They also had a much better defense and more offensive weapons than Stanford could ever hope to have. Their opponents also had to be concerned with more than just Ingram, whereas all anyone really had to do to beat Stanford was stop Gerhart. Every Stanford opponent knew that and they still couldn't do it. Just a little more perspective.

And that was my point about Gerhart being on a lesser team. I have never liked the idea of the Heisman. This is a team sport and to try to pick the best player isn't fair. Sure those guys on the line in front of Ingram can brag for the rest of their lives that they blocked for a Heisman winner but no one will remember them as guys who made it happen for Ingram. And it's the same for every position on the field. It always takes the other 10 guys. No one guy is capable of doing it themselves.

I don't have a problem with the awards for the best player at a certain position but the best overall player is really hard get right.

I don't dislike Ingram. He seems like a good guy and he did have a great year and helped get AL into the Championship game. I just don't like the award PERIOD!

[USMCJG]

Well, when you play an easy schedule, your opponents suck. No big surprise.

See? We can do this all day!

The point is, numbers can be twisted to mean what you want, but Ingram performed at a high level in the biggest games, against he best defenses in the country, while playing the second toughest schedule in the country and sharing carries in what is likely the deepest backfield in the country. He deserves it as much as anyone, as the Heisman voters already attested.

Yes but you are speaking as a fan. I am a casual observer who has no strong feelings about either team or player. And don't forget that the all-knowing Heisman voters gave the award to Charles Woodson. All of their credibility went out the window in 1997.

[USMCJG]

And that was my point about Gerhart being on a lesser team. I have never liked the idea of the Heisman. This is a team sport and to try to pick the best player isn't fair. Sure those guys on the line in front of Ingram can brag for the rest of their lives that they blocked for a Heisman winner but no one will remember them as guys who made it happen for Ingram. And it's the same for every position on the field. It always takes the other 10 guys. No one guy is capable of doing it themselves.

I don't have a problem with the awards for the best player at a certain position but the best overall player is really hard get right.

I don't dislike Ingram. He seems like a good guy and he did have a great year and helped get AL into the Championship game. I just don't like the award PERIOD!

I agree.

[G27]

Yes but you are speaking as a fan. I am a casual observer who has no strong feelings about either team or player. And don't forget that the all-knowing Heisman voters gave the award to Charles Woodson. All of their credibility went out the window in 1997.

Ahh, you must be a Tennessee fan - now it makes sense. Only Tennessee fans think Woodson didn't deserve it. He was SICK that year.

"Casual observer" indeed.

Either way, the Heisman voters saw what they saw - a RB who performed against the toughest competition out there, and voted accordingly.

Cheers,

[USMCJG]

Ahh, you must be a Tennessee fan - now it makes sense. Only Tennessee fans think Woodson didn't deserve it. He was SICK that year.

"Casual observer" indeed.

Either way, the Heisman voters saw what they saw - a RB who performed against the toughest competition out there, and voted accordingly.

Cheers,

I like UT, but I'm a Penn State fan. Anybody who thinks Woodson deserved that award is either an Alabama, Florida, or Michigan fan, or is retarded.

[Volzfan]

I like UT, but I'm a Penn State fan. Anybody who thinks Woodson deserved that award is either an Alabama, Florida, or Michigan fan, or is retarded.

[Jasongar8]

Ahh, you must be a Tennessee fan - now it makes sense. Only Tennessee fans think Woodson didn't deserve it. He was SICK that year.

"Casual observer" indeed.

Either way, the Heisman voters saw what they saw - a RB who performed against the toughest competition out there, and voted accordingly.

Cheers,

And didn't Peyton perform against the same level of competition?

[G27]

And didn't Peyton perform against the same level of competition?

As who? Woodson? He wasn't a running back, that part was about Ingram.

[USMCJG]

As who? Woodson? He wasn't a running back, that part was about Ingram.

I think he means that Peyton went against the same level of competition as Ingram, and yet he lost. While Woodson played in a weaker conference, against weaker opponents, and he won. FYI, in 1997 Tennessee's ranked 6th in strength of schedule, Michigan was 35th.

[Jasongar8]

I think he means that Peyton went against the same level of competition as Ingram, and yet he lost. While Woodson played in a weaker conference, against weaker opponents, and he won. FYI, in 1997 Tennessee's ranked 6th in strength of schedule, Michigan was 35th.

Yea what this guy said. That was the point I was trying to make. That Peyton went up against the same level of competition as Ingram and he still didnt win. If nothing, at least we can all agree that the SEC is the best conference in college football.

[G27]

I think he means that Peyton went against the same level of competition as Ingram, and yet he lost. While Woodson played in a weaker conference, against weaker opponents, and he won. FYI, in 1997 Tennessee's ranked 6th in strength of schedule, Michigan was 35th.

Oh, yah. I see your point. But the level of competition was much closer between UM and UT that year. My point is a lot of backs could have a great year playing a really soft schedule. I think Gerhart's a great back, without question, but he wouldn't even start for several teams in the SEC (UT, LSU, Bama, MSU)...

[G27]

If nothing, at least we can all agree that the SEC is the best conference in college football.

I think this is def true right now, has been for some time. Especially top-to-bottom - few conferences have cellar dwellers that can beat the top team any given Saturday...

[USMCJG]

Oh, yah. I see your point. But the level of competition was much closer between UM and UT that year. My point is a lot of backs could have a great year playing a really soft schedule. I think Gerhart's a great back, without question, but he wouldn't even start for several teams in the SEC (UT, LSU, Bama, MSU)...

I think Gerhart would start, or at least get significant playing time, for any of those teams including Bama. He is a very good player. I'm not taking anything away from Ingram, he is a very good player as well. Having said all of this, neither Gerhart or Ingram should have won the Heisman. Ndamukong Suh was the most dominant player in the country, but unfortunately he plays defense and doesn't return kicks.

[G27]

Warren Sapp said it in '94 (paraphrasing) "the deck's stacked against us - the trophy is carrying the ball".

I didn't see enough of Suh this year to say one way or the other, but he's obviously a monster.