Though I don't think Ingram is the travesty some who post one this board would claim, I do not see how anyone can make a good faith argument that Ingram is better then Gerhart without slipping into allegedly non-material considerations like team winning record, conference, and whether or not their team is playing in the MNC. It seems to me that Ingram beat Gerhart just because Gerhart did not play during the SEC CCG weekend. That is ridiculous.
Ricky had about 40 yards against Kansas State the year he won it. A single bad game shouldn't scratch your name completetly off the list. Otherwise, some of the best Heisman winners ever (e.g. Ricky) wouldn't have one. Last year was an unusually strong class. I thought Colt should have won it. This year was substantially weaker. Congrats to Ingram. He seems like a really good kid.
i cant believe nobody has mentioned desmond howard. imo, heis the worst ever. he wasnt even the best cb on his team. and peyton manning was playing and lost.
Let's be honest, no one really deserved it. Suh might have been the closest one but it's just too damn hard for a defensive player to win it.
Torreta worst the 2nd biggest injustice after VY was Peyton Manning getting robbed. I don't understand the hate for Crouch and White, they were both deserving. Ingram was also a lame pick. He should have been 3rd or 4th
I wonder how Colt would have fared if he had not been bashed in the media the way he was. If the *** clowns, like Herbstreet, had kept their traps shut and let the chips fall where they may, I wouldn't be so ticked off at the outcome. Hook 'em, Everette
Marshall Faulk was the baddest ************ in all the land. He continued to prove it in the NFL forever.
Troy Smith hasn't gotten mentioned enough. He was a default pick because he was QB of the #1 team and nobody seemed to stand out, and also he kept getting mentioned as a dual-threat QB which was ridiculous because he was not a very good runner.
As far as who is the worst... I think Laphroaig10's post is very telling. Perhapse because this was a "down year" Ingram is not the worst pick ever... but it's still a shame that he won it over Suh and Gerhart. Full Flask... I agree with your assesments of the 4 finalist fully... and based on that I think Ingram was the least deserving of the 4. For all you "this is embarassing" people. I notice no one has even tried to argue he was the most deserving of the award. Forget Colt... tell me why he should get it over Suh and Gerhart? You can't...unless the Heisman is no longer a most outstanging player in the nation award. Did Ingram win any other national awards? The Walker, Maxwell, or Camp? NO!...because those awards are not ESPN Best For Advertising Awards....at least not yet. Look...I don't have any issue with Ingram, everything I have seen or read about him makes him seem like a great kid. What I don't like is what the Hesiman has become... You shouldn't have to be on the "Projected BCS National Champion" team to win.
Anyone who is old enough should remember two PAC 10 QBs from the 60s. (Actually I think that there were only eight schools in that conference at the time). 1962 Terry Baker - Oregon State 1967 Gary Beban - UCLA
1957 John David Crow, RB Texas A&M - he only played in 7 games. Pretty telling for things to come; Bear Bryant told the Heisman voters that they ought "'to do away with the thing'" if they didn't vote for Crow.
funny, I got all the way down and saw pjohnson had beat me to it - Gary Beban has to be in the running here... Actually though, in the end it all depends on what the discussion is - whether you're talking about the "worst Heisman winner" or the "worst vote". If it's the former, then Ingram is nowhere close. He's far superior to a lot of the guys mentioned already, and several others besides. If you're talking about the vote - who he beat out, then he's got to be in the running. His stats were nothing special - nowhere close to being close to past RB winners. And nobody can seriously tell me they watched him closely this year and thought - "Man, that's got to be the most outstanding player in college football this year!" He won because of the "SEC Lovefest" portion of the vote, pure and simple. I feel the same way about Reggie Bush. He was a terrific college football player, and in most years I would have no qualms about him being the winner. But going against the most electrifying and dominant year a player has ever had - with stats to prove it - most compiled in the first 2/12 quarters btw... well, not a good selection. I think a substantial percentage of the voters had never actually watched a complete Vince Young game prior the the ensuing Rose Bowl. His performance would not have come as such a shocker to them if they had. It's not like he'd never played that way before, it's just that they hadn't seen it... anyway, that kind of ill-informed voting is just one of the reasons the award has lost its luster. At least in my eyes...
Here's an article I wrote about some of the great Heisman hose jobs. barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2009/12/08/a-heisman-history-of-hose-jobs-hijinks/
Worst new school; gino toretta mark ingram jason white Worst old school: terry baker paul horning john huarte
I still think Suh should have won. I also think he wouldn't have become nearly as good as he is if his daddy had named him Bill, or George - anything but Suh.
OK, I'm no longer bitter about this... okay, maybe I am, so what! What makes me so... ARRRRRGGHHH!!! is that I too do not feel Ingram was the most deserving player. Gerhart & Suh tore it up in their rightful positions. McCoy earned it by his overall accomplishments, leadership, tenacity, etc etc. Ingram?... Meh. High pedestrian performance and not even the top producer for his position. Heisman Trophy, the most distinguished award in all of college football? WHATEVER! They should rename it the ESPiN Beauty Pageant.
