CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2021, 12:41:18 AM
-
2019 (Burrow year): Tua Tagovailoa (ALA)
2018 (Murray year): Quinnen Williams (ALA), Jonathan Taylor (WIS)
2015 (Henry year): Trevone Boykin (TCU)
2014 (Mariota year): Bryce Petty (BU)
Wow, there's a lot more of these than I anticipated!
2012 (Manziel year): Kenjon Barner (ORE), Jarvis Jones (UGA)
2010 (Newton year): Justin Blackmon (OKST)
2008 (Bradford year): Javon Ringer (MSU)
2007 (Tebow year): Chris Long (UVA)
2006 (Smith year): Ray Rice (RUT), Ian Johnson (BSU), Dwayne Jarrett (USC), Calvin Johnson (GT)
2005 (Bush year): DeAngelo Williams (MEM), Drew Olson (UCLA)
2003 (White year): B.J. Symons (TTU)
2002 (Palmer year): Quentin Griffin (OU)
2000 (Weinke year): Ken Simonton (ORST)
1999 (Dayne year): Tim Rattay (LT)
1998 (Williams year): Shaun King (TUL)
1995 (George year): Tim Biakabutuka (UM)
1994 (Salaam year): Lawrence Phillips (UNL), Zach Wiegert (UNL)
1991 (Howard year): Terrell Buckley (FSU)
1985 (Jackson year): Thurman Thomas (OKST)
1984 (Flutie year): Bill Fralic (PITT), Rueben Mayes (WSU)
1982 (Walker year): Dan Marino (PITT)
1979 (White year): Steadman Shealy (ALA)
1976 (Dorsett year): Gifford Nielson (BYU), Mike Voight (UNC)
1967 (Beban year): Terry Hanratty (ND)
1966 (Spurrier year): George Patton (UGA)
.
Just wondering how similar they are...looking at the variety. I just think it's interesting.
Also, from 1973 and earlier, voting was MUCH less top-heavy. 10th-place finishers routinely had 20+ first-place votes, while today, it's common for players outside the top 5 to get single-digit or even zero 1st-place votes.
-
I think you will find that voter voted much more regionally back then and thus the spread out of votes.
Lots of only regional games and parochialism.
-
I like that there wasn't everyone falling in line. Regional bias isn't a good thing, but every voter actually voting for who they thing had the best season is.
-
best season by the player in their region
-
I think you will find that voter voted much more regionally back then and thus the spread out of votes.
Lots of only regional games and parochialism.
Possibly, though there’s still a modest bit of regionalism.
Im guessing information imbalance and homerism played a big role as well. Like, we have so much more ability to review candidates. I’m betting back in the day, a sports writer or attendee might only see a handful fewer games than someone who watched at home,
I wonder if the consensus comes from people taking it more seriously.
-
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/67231631.jpg)
-
I wonder if the consensus comes from people taking it more seriously.
I doubt it.
The voting should look like half of a bell curve, but if you look at the 1st place voting, it's more like 1 or 2 players with all the votes and a few others in single digits.
.
I think the increase in consensus is simply voters not wanting any trouble and/or voting like our 2-party system, where a vote for a predicted non-winner is perceived as a wasted vote.
I'd really just rather everyone simply vote for the guy they think earned it. Why is that such a silly idea?
-
I doubt it.
The voting should look like half of a bell curve, but if you look at the 1st place voting, it's more like 1 or 2 players with all the votes and a few others in single digits.
.
I think the increase in consensus is simply voters not wanting any trouble and/or voting like our 2-party system, where a vote for a predicted non-winner is perceived as a wasted vote.
I'd really just rather everyone simply vote for the guy they think earned it. Why is that such a silly idea?
That bolded part does not make any sense. People build voting blocs in politics becuase of common interests (sometimes vague common interests). There is no common interest in CFB. There is no horse trading and consensus building after the fact.
Some of the other points I think are kinds interesting.
They should vote for who they think earned it: I think that might be what's done now more than it used to be. In the past, you're more likely to vote for a guy to give him some shine. Or because it's good for Toledo to get some love, etc.
The trouble idea is more interesting, especially as you've been a bit of a proponent of creating said trouble. Of course, most voters don't reveal votes, and most of the time, no one knows who is a Heisman voter unless they say so.
Looking back, one thing that's interesting is how record plays in. Examining some of those early 1970s votes, there's sort of a mix of RB with big numbers on notable team, QB with big numbers on semi-notable team, QB with so-so numbers on very notable team, statistical oddity or hyped non skill guy (like a defender, or a really productive receiver).
I wonder if we've gotten to a point where we just take into account fewer high-end teams, and we have higher standards for said players. Like, if an option QB for the No. 1 team had three touchdown throws, eight picks and less than 110 passing/rushing yards per game, is it good that guy got 17 first-place votes? Or 31 first-place votes for the good QB of a 12-0 MAC team?
-
That bolded part does not make any sense. People build voting blocs in politics becuase of common interests (sometimes vague common interests). There is no common interest in CFB. There is no horse trading and consensus building after the fact.
I think this is incredibly naive.
I'm not saying there are voting blocs for the Heisman, but if a voter believes the CB from Texas is the best player in the country, he's less likely to vote for him now that he was in the past. This isn't because of regionalism, but because (and here's where the presidential election mirrors it) there are 2-3 consensus guys who have a chance at winning. That voter wants his vote to count and votes for one of those 2-3 guys instead of who he actually thinks the winner should be.
-
I think this is incredibly naive.
I'm not saying there are voting blocs for the Heisman, but if a voter believes the CB from Texas is the best player in the country, he's less likely to vote for him now that he was in the past. This isn't because of regionalism, but because (and here's where the presidential election mirrors it) there are 2-3 consensus guys who have a chance at winning. That voter wants his vote to count and votes for one of those 2-3 guys instead of who he actually thinks the winner should be.
The bolded part is pretty naive, or odd. One of the two. No one cares that their Heisman vote 'counts.' They do not have a stake in it.
Politics are different because in theory you are selecting someone to get things done. A person who isn't your guy might still get done some things you want, as compared to doing things you don't want. This is a dynamic that doesn't exist in football award voting, outside a few weirdos, maybe.
-
We disagree, but neither of us KNOWS.
Do you not agree that saying "I voted for the guy who finished 8th" might fall short of saying "yeah, I voted for the guy who won it"? I agree that it's a stupid thing, but that doesn't mean it's not a thing.
Or think about it like this.....40 years ago, there were fewer voters. Yet today, the votes are seemingly funneled for 2-3 players only. How would that happen with more voters organically?
-
well, we've mostly blamed the media(ESPN) for hypesman voting deficiencies in the past
-
Do you not agree that saying "I voted for the guy who finished 8th" might fall short of saying "yeah, I voted for the guy who won it"? I agree that it's a stupid thing, but that doesn't mean it's not a thing.
Or think about it like this.....40 years ago, there were fewer voters. Yet today, the votes are seemingly funneled for 2-3 players only. How would that happen with more voters organically?
I kind of do disagree. Saying you are unoriginal and went with the crowd is hardly a badge of honor. This is not some brag. In the modern media landscape, a column about why you voted for Desmond Ritter is far more likely to draw attention and web traffic. There's simply just about nothing interesting or notable about saying that you voted like four hundred other people. It's all but a non-squinter unless you think people are wired in a strange, strange way.
Here are some ways that it would happen organically that don't involve bragging about group think:
-We have more access to info. Simply put, we can see ALL the stuff. Back then, people were working with incredibly uneven data and visuals.
-We have more unified conversations. Simply put, ESPN and Fox churn through a TON of college football talk. And while it's a cacophony, some tones do emerge. The teams have numbers, the highest ones lead the shows and discussions, people take cues.
-Smart people can interact. Voters have so, so much access to the conversation about the award and the arguments for everyone. And if lots of people read the same arguments, a lot of people are often convinced of the same arguments.
-A coalescing of candidate type: We're in an era where we have efficent, prolific QBs who can also run and play for top teams (Johnny football is a good example). That tends to be a type that dominates these fields. Multi-talented backs or backs with good stories sometimes break through. Also the odd defensive player. Davonta Smith was interesting because he was far and away the most standout guy at his position statistically and arguably the top player on the best team.
-The No. 1 way: Through the years, we've cut and cut the breadth of the sport we consider truly important.
You look back, Toledo going 12-0 at one point mattered to someone. And putting up bonkers numbers for Tulsa in the MVC could get you second place. These days, there’s a great chorus that they’re basically playing HS teams. At some point, the sport turned attention to the top squads. And if you didn’t get your team to that level, it would take something mammoth to be considered, along with the old rule that a bad big game could sink you. Well, if you’re not on that top team, it likely means you had a dud against a top team along the way.
These are all good ways it could happen.
-
-We have more unified conversations. Simply put, ESPN and Fox churn through a TON of college football talk. And while it's a cacophony, some tones do emerge. The teams have numbers, the highest ones lead the shows and discussions, people take cues.
It's probably 99% this.
-
It's probably 99% this.
Would put it more on the last one.
They rarely give 13-0 MAC team stars love. We rarely give Craig Krenzel first place votes. They don't throw votes to kids like the WKU boys.
Fewer folks are considered because we write off the weird and quirky in the four-team playoff era.
-
They don't win because they aren't the best. They simply have big stats. Context matters. It's always mattered.
-
it's never mattered to some folks, including voters, and those votes matter
-
I blame democracy.
-
I always liked to blame Bob Stoops, but this is a reach
-
They don't win because they aren't the best. They simply have big stats. Context matters. It's always mattered.
That's true. But those guys, pre-1970, rang up double digit first-place votes (a couple finished second!). It's become less accepted to vote one of those players as the most "outstanding" in the country.
-
THIS WEEK IN HUSKER HISTORY
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The week of Jan. 1-7, looking back in five-year intervals[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]«1937: Sam Francis (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7783872/1937-sam-francis-wins-douglas-fairbanks/) wins the Douglas Fairbanks trophy, awarded to the college football's most outstanding player and determined by a vote of players nationwide. [/color]