CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

"Shoelace" has been receiving a lot of love from the sportswriters. Is it deserved? I get the undertones from all the "Robinson is the Heisman Frontrunner" articles, that the writers aren't even buying it, but they have to write about something, and it seems like an easy topic.

I think after Michigan loses several games, it'll go back to the flavor of the week...then end up being awarded to a solid pick...e.g. SEC Champion's RB, PAC-10 Champs QB, etc.

Totally agree. Unfortunately, it can appear to be the flavor of the week with the hype. It also have pretty much become a team award. I think the voters have forgotten that it is supposed to the the best college player of the year.

Too early to know if Michigan and/or Robinson are the real deal. I have to admit, though, he looks very good. Time will tell.

RazorHawk wrote: It also has pretty much become a team award. I think the voters have forgotten that it is supposed to represent the best college player of the year.

It doesn't help, having the latest heisman winners to vote, seeing as, they have all won because of how good their teams were, so the judge-mentality is slightly askewed.

And, whereas the media seems to be helping with the promotion of good athletes... they have completely lost their direction, choosing not to promote those who are rather outstanding, though little heard about.

The media has an opportunity to do a service for these smaller program athletes; instead, they would prefer to continue the ridiculous circus feature around the nation's top program stars.

The irony is in their hypocrisy, where they spout an unfair BCS system prevents the smaller schools from playing for a FBS Championship; all while ignoring the "little guy" who is doing marvels on the field with a smaller stage.

Until the two faced media money whores finally show some true consistency... they will remain, always, as inveigle discrepant rhetorical spin artists, to me.

.

.

.

Cane from the Bend wrote:

RazorHawk wrote: It also has pretty much become a team award. I think the voters have forgotten that it is supposed to represent the best college player of the year.

It doesn't help, having the latest heisman winners to vote, seeing as, they have all won because of how good their teams were, so the judge-mentality is slightly askewed.

And, whereas the media seems to be helping with the promotion of good athletes... they have completely lost their direction, choosing not to promote those who are rather outstanding, though little heard about.

The media has an opportunity to do a service for these smaller program athletes; instead, they would prefer to continue the ridiculous circus feature around the nation's top program stars.

The irony is in their hypocrisy, where they spout an unfair BCS system prevents the smaller schools from playing for a FBS Championship; all while ignoring the "little guy" who is doing marvels on the field with a smaller stage.

Until the two faced media money whores finally show some true consistency... they will remain, always, as inveigle discrepant rhetorical spin artists, to me.

..

I thought you believed they have been very consistent.

If you mean that they are consistent in maintaining their inconsistency...

Then yes.


Though this is nothing new.

I've been blasting the media for it over the past 10 years with this group ( those of us who are converts from the Sparklit forum know all too well what I'm referring to ).

.

.

.

I thought the year when Gordie Lockbaum from Holy Cross was in the running and actually finished fifth was what the award was supposed to be about. Paul Hornung won the award on a 2-8 team.

Of course that team was Notre Dame, but he was clearly the best player that year. Upon further review, Jim Brown was a pretty good running back from Syracuse.

Jim Brown was the definition of power back. Probaly the best ever.

Spence wrote:Jim Brown was the definition of power back. Probaly the best ever.

I was only 11, so I don't remember much about his college career at Syracuse. I do remember him as a great pro running back. I remember after every time he was tackled, it took him forever to get up, as he almost appeared to be injured. He said he purposely did that so that the opposition would NOT know if he was hurting. Also, back then, down by contact was not enough, as the runner actually had to be not only tackled, but also stopped.

RazorHawk wrote:

Spence wrote:Jim Brown was the definition of power back. Probaly the best ever.

I was only 11, so I don't remember much about his college career at Syracuse. I do remember him as a great pro running back. I remember after every time he was tackled, it took him forever to get up, as he almost appeared to be injured. He said he purposely did that so that the opposition would NOT know if he was hurting. Also, back then, down by contact was not enough, as the runner actually had to be not only tackled, but also stopped.

I never saw him at Syracuse either. I did see him play in Cleveland several times when I was little. Given the kind of runner he was, though, I can't imagine he was worse in college.

Most folks did not see Jim Brown play in college...there were so few college games televised and Notre Dame and the Big Ten had most of the slots.

Paul Hornung may have been on a losing team, but all of America knew of his exploits on the field. Notre Dame got the press, played on TV.

billybud wrote:Most folks did not see Jim Brown play in college...there were so few college games televised and Notre Dame and the Big Ten had most of the slots.

Paul Hornung may have been on a losing team, but all of America knew of his exploits on the field. Notre Dame got the press, played on TV.

And Jim Brown not being White, while much of the country did not allow Black players, may have had an affect. Hard to imagine that now. I guess that does show we have made some progress in the racial business.