Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Jonathan Taylor didn't even get an invite to NYC. 2 unanimous AA, two Doak Walker awards.

I'm NOT saying there weren't other deserving players invited. Not that at all.



Look at those numbers. Not even an invite. Tells me that a tailback will never win it again.

Not so sure it's just because he was a tailback. I think it was probably that Wisconsin went (pre-bowl game) 7-5 in 2018 and 10-3 in 2019. 

They don't give Heisman Trophies to players that aren't on one of the best teams, especially when that team isn't a helmet. 

Jonathan Taylor didn't even get an invite to NYC. 2 unanimous AA, two Doak Walker awards.

I'm NOT saying there weren't other deserving players invited. Not that at all.
[img width=274.381 height=238]https://i.imgur.com/oyw4zN0.png[/img]
Look at those numbers. Not even an invite. Tells me that a tailback will never win it again.

Beta mentioned the need to be on a team in the NC hunt and that is a factor but it goes beyond that and this applies to Helmets too.

Last year CJ Stroud completed 2/3 of his passes for ~4,000 yards and had a TD/INT ratio of 41/6. Those are great numbers and he'd have won the Heisman but for two things:

• Ohio State lost to Michigan, and
• His stat line against Michigan was meh: 31/48, 350 yards, 2TD, 2INT.

He could have won the Heismann with mediocre numbers against Michigan if Ohio State won anyway or he could have won with a loss to Michigan if he had great numbers and Ohio State lost a shootout but he couldn't win it with mediocre numbers in a loss on his biggest stage of the season.

In 2017 Wisconsin was in the NC hunt at 12-0 and #4 heading into the B1GCG but they lost to Ohio State and Taylor's stat line was 15 carries for 41 yards (2.7 avg, 7 long) with no TD.

In 2018 as @betarhoalphadelta mentioned the Badgers went 7-5 so Taylor never really had a big stage opportunity.

In 2019 the Badgers played two big stage games. The first was a 38-7 road loss as #13 to #3 Ohio State. In that game Taylor had 20 carries for 52 yards (2.6 avg, 14 long) with no TD.

The second was a 34-21 loss to tOSU in the B1GCG. In this game Taylor's stat line was solid, 20 carries for 148 yards (7.4 avg, 45 long) and a TD BUT, his team still lost.

To win the Heisman what you need is:

• To be on a team good enough to get you into "Big Stage" games, and
• Either to put up video game numbers in a loss on the big stage or to put up at least decent numbers in a win on the big stage.

we all know this

most of us think it's not right

I get it and I partially agree but to play devil's advocate:

If you are putting up great numbers on a crappy team, who cares? What did you actually accomplish?

This is an old debate. When I was in school Iowa State had a RB named Troy Davis who put up gaudy #'s. He had back-to-back 2,000 yard rushing seasons in 1995 and 1996 but in those two seasons the Cyclones finished dead last in the old Big8 then dead last in the B12-N. 

The argument is that if ISU had not had Troy Davis they wouldn't have been appreciably worse because they were already terrible so who cares? 

to do what Troy did on those crap teams is much more impressive to me than what Eddie did in 95 or Danny Wuerffel in 96 on great teams

Was Eddie the reason tOSU was that good in 95?
In Spurrier's system on the 96 team, could another QB put up those numbers?

the bigger question......... would Eddie have run for 2,000 yards for ISU in 95?
I'm not so sure

I would argue that George and Wuerffel were responsible for more wins over replacement than Troy Davis.

and I might argue the other way with Eddie and Troy

1994 and 1995 Eddie was leading rusher for the Buckeyes - 20-6 record

1993 10-1-1 
1996 11-1
____________________
95 & 96 the Cyclones were 5-17

1994 0-10-1
1996 1-10

Did Troy have Orlando Pace blocking for him?

Just checking.

One of the biggest NFL decision mistakes ever was the RB who followed George. 

Pace was a three-year player from 1994-1996.  I don't know if this is true but I read once that in three years starting on the tOSU O-line, Orlando Pace Never gave up a sack.  It might be true, he was that good. 

So funny little Eddie George story.  This was pre NIL of course so college football players weren't supposed to be getting paid at all and even if they were getting cash it had to be kept to a minimal level so as to not be too obvious.  Anyway, Eddie's last year at tOSU was 1995 when he won the heismann.  That year during the SuperBowl Eddie appeared in an AD for some painkiller.  It was a cute ad.  It had a bunch of NFL guys and Eddie and basically was saying "you'll need this once you get here, rookie". 

The day after the Super Bowl I was walking down High Street headed for a class when a HUMONGOUS and BRAND NEW Land Rover approached on one of the side streets.  Eddie George was driving. 

Back to the story:
Pretty much the entire tOSU O-line from 1995 returned for 1996 and Ohio State's leading rusher was a guy named Pepe Pearson who carried 286 times for 1,373 yards (4.8 avg).  The thing is that any of us could probably have averaged at least 3 yards because following Orlando Pace isn't all that complicated.  The 1996 tOSU O-line was THAT good. 

Pearson opted NOT to go to the NFL after the 1996 season and probably still regrets it.  His 1997 season was a dropoff.  He didn't get worse but he lost his starting QB and most of his line.  

Now to get to @FearlessF 's point, in 1995 Eddie rushed 303 times for 1,826 yards (6.0 avg) so I think that was a LOT better than Pearson's 4.8 avg a year later.  It is an even bigger difference when you consider that Pearson's O-line was a year older and BETTER than the line that blocked for George in 1995. Eddie's extra 1.2 yards per carry is a BIG difference. 

The extra ppg in 1996, to address @betarhoalphadelta 's point, were mostly because tOSU had a LOT more short fields due to the 1996 defense being stifling.  The passing and rushing stats were around the same or worse. 

I've heard it said that coaches don't do their polls.  They don't have time.  Some GA does it and they glance at it and nod.

I wonder if that is somewhat true with the Heisman voters as well, probably not as true, if true at all.  They watch Sportscenter and maybe look at some stats.  Then it comes down to four "finalists" chosen somehow and maybe they do a bit of dilligence, but I'd guess nowhere near the analytical detail youse guys are doing here (which is interesting to me).

Last year the Dawgs had 3-4 guys I'd rank as more "outstanding" than SBIV.  But he was the QB on a good team and made some plays that probably surprised some folks.  So, he got the invite.