Colt is not going to win it. Ingram will. All of the voters saw those last two games back to back and then voted. Hell, even I would vote for Suh.
So, let's see ------ Bohls did not vote for Colt in 2009 because he did not out perform Colt in 2008.??!!??! Not that it really matters, but Kirk Bohls is the one reason I have not subscribed to the AAS for years and won't subscribe again until he is gone.
Bohls asserted that Bush was a better college player than Vince. What else could you possibility need to know about his judgement?
Sadly, the Heisman goes to a top player that finishes the last game well. I don't know that Suh was even on the radar until the Big12 Championship game. The Nebraska losses and close calls had him well back in the pack until the very end.
Another example of UT's local paper trying to show how "ubiased" it is by constantly putting anybody besides Texas on top of polls and awards, thus making them very biased. How do you think the voters in Tuscaloosa voted? Lincoln? How did all 11 voters in Oklahoma vote last year? Of course they voted for Bradford. The people who live in Austin should tell the AAS advertisers to f**k off and then maybe that crap paper will do the same to Bohls.
I have not paid for the statesman in over ten years, and with the "unbiased" sports journalism exhibited by Bohls, I never will--not one penny.
Bohls is a first class tool. I'm trying to think of a Newspaper Sports Columnist that I like. I liked Mickey Herskowitz back in the day. My response: How sad that such a quality person as Colt McCoy, the winningest quarterback in the history of college football, does not rate the support of his hometown newspaper. Suh had an amazing game against Texas. How much more amazing is it that Colt was able to engineer win #45 despite the pounding he took? Wrong again, Kirk. That's okay though, because you may have helped Colt avoid the distraction of a traditional award that has become a joke. Here's to Colt striking the same pose as Vince did with the crystal football.
I'm sorry but Suh having one phenomenal game at the end of the season does not make a Heisman. For a sports writer living in Austin to argue that Suh was more important to his team "for the season" than Colt has been to UT -- when we are undefeated and they are not -- is spurious on its face. I don't expect any Heisman voter to make picks on a regional or local basis, though we all know it happens. Those voters in Alabama are certainly not going to stray from Ingram. But in a race where a very strong argument can be made for the hometown hero who is now the most winningest QB in NCAA History, I DO expect it to have some bearing. Bohls acts like he's somehow standing up for his principles and we should all be proud of him. My estimation is that he's a contrarian *** looking for personal publicity. He could very well have kept his vote secret as many do. I no longer live in Austin. If I did, I'd be making a phone call to the circulation department this morning to cancel my subscription -- and telling them the reason why.
Local SA Express News sports writer, Buck Harvey, voted Colt THIRD. He voted Ingram second, and Ndamukong Suh first! Harvey is such a negative nellie when it comes to any local sports team, be it Longhorns, Cowboys, Spurs, etc. that its amazing he still has a job. Harvey went on to credit Ndamukong Suh with preventing Colt from running out the clock by mistake Saturday. Suh's pursuit caused McCoy to throw the ball away just in time according to Harvey.
I actually have no problem with this. What I have problems with are the other two that voted Colt third. Give me a break.
Suh has been ridiculously good all season. Most people never paid attention to him. He's been on lots of people's radars for most of the season.
Suh only had like 4.5 sacks going in to the Texas game. The thing that makes me mad is our offense line did more to get Suh the Heisman then Colt. If the o-line does their job those votes that went to Suh would have gone to Colt.
Seems "they" want a RB to win it this year. Ingram is not even the best RB on the ballot. Another joke if he wins it. Either Colt or Colby deserve it...heck even Suh over Ingram. Ingram would be 4th on my ballot and Tebow 5th
I posted this in the other thread as well: I like how Bohls says that there was not one game where Suh disappeared this year and Colt has had several (namely Oklahoma and Nebraska). Really? Texas Tech - 4 tackles, 0 sacks Oklahoma - 4 tackles, 0 sacks Kansas - 3 tackles, 0 sacks Looks like he was marginalized in a few games. Don't get me wrong, the guy is a beast and probably the #1 pick in the draft. But the hypocrisy of some of the stances is unbelievable. One game does not a Heisman winner make.
I don't really care, let Suh win it. McCoy did not have a great season and nobody had the "perfect" season this year. If I remember correctly the year Ricky won he started the season with a couple of bad games against UCLA & K St but came on and the great game against A&M won it for him. The Heisman has turned into a bs award anyway. Bradford's offensive line won it for him last year and if Ingram wins it this year it will be because of his offensive line.
Suh definitely got a huge boost from the CCG, but his name was much discussed mid season after it was apparent that all the qbs in line for the award were hurt or otherwise having down years, and his name was discussed for little things like being defensive tackle that was leading his team in tackles and sacks and among the team leaders in interceptions and passes broken up. DTs don't usually do those sorts of things, you see. DTs usually have somewhere between 2 to 5 tackles a game, rarely sack the qb and never drop into pass coverage. Suh's worst games this past year, games in which he was facing double and triple teams on nearly every snap, were about the average for Roy Miller last year. Nebraska defensive tackles combined for 21.5 sacks. That's unheard of. You think Suh got his 12 because teams were doulbing up on Crick?
I dunno, hard to get upset at Bohls for this. Suh/Ingram/McCoy makes perfect sense to me. Besides it's not a question of who gets the most first-place votes, it's who gets the highest total. If McCoy is consistently in the top three among voters he's got a fighting chance to win it. Bradford won last year on the strength of all the SECOND place votes.
I liked Dan Neil's take on it this morning; Bohls voted for Suh for the same reason he voted for Bush in '05. He can talk for the next 2 weeks in his column and on the radio about why he voted that way. If he had voted for Colt (and Vince), no one would be interested in his bloviating. But now people will give him the attention he so desperately craves. I don't have a problem with someone voting for Suh if they truly believe Suh is the most deserving. But here's the reality; Suh's team is 9-4 and playing in a second rate bowl, even despite his greatness. McCoy's team is undefeated and playing for a national title in a month. That should count for something. But the Heisman is a media-driven award. The former winners have no control whatsoever since there are so few of them compared to media voters. And the media want to give the award to someone other than Colt or Tebow (my how things have changed since September) so they can talk about it forever. That's why the Heisman has been worthless for the past decade ... it's not awarded based on merit; it's awarded based on what kind of story the media want to be able to tell.
People thinking Suh only had one good game don't know what they are talking about. He's been good all year. The only reason it took until now for him to be a frontrunner is that most voters have unfair biases in favor of QBs and RBs.
I have no problem with the fact that he didn't vote Colt #1. I think Colt deserves, but a good argument could be made for 3 of the other candidates as well (excluding Tebow), similar to last year. My problem is his logic. He makes the exclamation that the Heisman is not a career award. This is true and correct. But then he goes on to exclaim that Colt didn't live up to the standards "this year" that he set "last year." Kirk...if its not a career award than what Colt did last year, by your logic, is irrelevant. Sometimes I just wish the guy would be freakin honest with his readers. He craves the reaction. He even mentions it in his column by accepting he's going to get criticized. It wouldn't surprise me if, in his private life, some leathered-up S&M hooker is stuffing a plastic red ball in his mouth and whipping him Pulp Fiction style. The guy just wants a reaction. If you don't like it, don't read it.
