Look back at Suh and the erroneous Hypesman

knapplc said:
I agree you could argue that Eddie George was the MVP of college football that year. I just happened to watch most of his games and all of Frazier's, and it's pretty clear to me Frazier was the MVP.

It's also weird that you consistently capitalize George but not Frazier.
Click to expand...
I'm on my phone, I have no control over what my phone does!  I also agree that you could make an argue for both, it seems like people on this board thinks there was a huge gap between the two.  I'm still saying 1a and 1b.

 
I don't believe the Heisman is explicitly "most valuable," I think it can be seen as "best player." It's like this with any award though, how do you determine most valuable? Do we give points for being on a worse team just because that means the player is responsible for more of their success? That penalizes players on good teams, and by that logic Tua shouldn't have even been a contender this year.

George was not undeserving, but I do think Frazier was a better player and the better choice - I am obviously biased there. The Heisman just cycles between "best player on  best team" (which Frazier would have won), or "most valuable," which tends to favor players on good but not great teams. If Frazier played for OSU and George for Nebraska, people would say Frazier was more valuable. I don't like deciding value based on who they play for. Unfortunately there's not a great way to measure "best," especially across positions.

 
Frazier should’ve won also because of his body of work. 

I know  its season to season, but it’s really not too. He was the MAN at QB, on at that time, an epic epic run of success for a college team. As a senior on clearly the best team who was repeating he should’ve won it for the culmination of his career and success for that year as well as prior years. 

And also, Suh was absolutely robbed.  No way in hell he wasn’t the best, most dominant player on a really good team too. His stats just in the Big12 CCG were what most DT put up for a SEASON 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tommie Frazier's stats didn't exactly jump off the page, not in the Heisman sense, but he was a stone-cold winner. As a Nebraska fan of course I preferred him over Eddie George, but I actually thought the Heisman voters showed Tommie tons of respect by putting him in the #2 spot. 

Maybe a defensive lineman will never get closer than Suh in 2009. Can't say he was disrespected, really,. Pretty much everyone in college football hailed him as a generational talent. And he came in way ahead of Tim Tebow, so that was nice. 

Mark Ingram was an underwhelming choice in '09, but I don't have a lot of arguments since then.

 
Tommie had a s#!tty Oklahoma game on national TV and I think that's what cost him. It was 37-0 but I seem to remember a lot of the points came off turnovers / short fields.

I like to think the Fiesta Bowl was motivation for him.

Rozier's and Crouch's Heisman seasons didn't end so well.

 
huskerfan333157 said:
Suh should have won the heisman that year but I feel like there's too much kool aid drinking with Frazier.  George had 2400 total yards compared to Frazier's 1976 total yards.  Are you saying Frazier should have won it because he was on the most dominant team(the best team in college football history I might add).
Click to expand...


1,976 total yards without playing in the second half of most games.

 
huskerfan333157 said:
Nebraska without frazier would have still been a top 5 team.  Osu without George would have had 3 more losses.  George had better stats.  I think the heisman should be about the most valuable player and I think you could argue George was that guy that year.  
Click to expand...


Except the Heisman isn’t for the most valuable player; it’s for the most outstanding player.

huskerfan333157 said:
I'm on my phone, I have no control over what my phone does!  I also agree that you could make an argue for both, it seems like people on this board thinks there was a huge gap between the two.  I'm still saying 1a and 1b.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess we’re lucky your phone went to HuskerBoard and not Eleven Warriors.

 
I absolutely/100% agree with the opinion that Tommy Frazier was a better and more legendary player than Eddie George.

But idk if he really 'should' have won the Heisman based on the sorts of things that people always win the Heisman for. How many people have won the Heisman with as uninspiring of a stat line as Tommie's was in '95? That's no knock on him by me, by the way - I think he's maybe the best college quarterback ever. He just wasn't in an offense that needed or was designed to have him put up big numbers, and big numbers as far as I know have always been part of the unspoken criteria of winning the Heisman.

In a way, he's too good for the Heisman. The Heisman is small-minded and focused on some relatively inconsequential factors that don't necessarily really matter at all. What Tommie had was transcendent and way more memorable and influencing than any of that silly business.

 
Decoy73 said:
They need to just re-categorize it as the award for the best offensive skill position player. Because that’s what it essentially is.  It would be extremely rare for a defender and near impossible for any lineman to win it. I’m sorry Heiman voters, but the “best “ college football players are not always QBs, RB,s and receivers. Nobody is buying that BS anymore.  
Click to expand...
I think the award needs to go to the replay booth personnel.  Thats where all the drama is these days!  But only if Capitol One says its OK.

 
The problem with the award is that the winners all get a vote....for which....the are all QBs, RBs and with a few WRs mixed in.

So......who do you think they are going to vote for?

 
Back
Top