SI: Friction Between Past Winners and the Heisman Trust Casts Cloud Over Ceremony

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,579
Reaction score
15,656
Points
113
per SI:

There is, as usual, plenty of drama surrounding the announcement of this year’s Heisman Trophy winner. But this year, the question isn’t who it’s going to be, it’s who is—and is not—going to be in the audience at Saturday night’s ceremony.

This has nothing to do with the runaway favorite, Oklahoma senior quarterback Baker Mayfield. This is about disagreements between the Heisman Trust (the board that controls the award) and a growing group of winners past who don’t like the way the board does business and are concerned about the trophy’s future.

“The Heisman’s star is fading,” says Gary Beban, the UCLA quarterback who won the trophy in 1967. “We’ve been trying to work with this board for years and we’ve really gotten nowhere.”

Out of 59 living recipients, just 22 were at last year’s events. Whalen says the Trust expects a higher number this year, but Brown doesn’t think that’s where this is headed. “The board says they don’t need us,” he said. “Well, if they keep losing guys, they’re going to see how that works out.”

Crouch agrees. He thinks the numbers will keep falling and interest keep fading. “We are just at a stalemate with the board,” the former Nebraska quarterback told me. “The way things are going, it’s not hard to imagine an award ceremony with no winners and no sponsors someday.”

https://www.si.com/college-football...m&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_si

Go Gophers!!
 

On the field this is a bad year. Hell, I didn't even know Lamar Jackson still played football and he's a finalist.
 

On the field this is a bad year. Hell, I didn't even know Lamar Jackson still played football and he's a finalist.

True. But it doesn't help that Saquan Barkley's season kind of went to pot also. Hence why Lamar Jackson is invited to the Heisman Ceremony. There just wasn't a ton of stand out performances this year.
 

My potentially controversial POV: the Heisman is effectively pointless now that the quarterback is so insanely crucial to the success of a football team. The trophy has become "the best QB on a very good team" award, unless a top-ranked team is led by an exceptional running back.

By decade, the breakdown of Heisman winning positions:

1930s:
Halfback 40%
Quarterback 40%
End 20%

1940s:
Halfback: 50%
Quarterback: 30%
End: 10%
Fullback: 10%

1950s:
Halfback: 80%
Quarterback: 10%
Fullback: 10%

1960s:
Quarterback: 50%
Halfback: 40%
Fullback: 10%

1970s:
Running Back: 70%
Quarterback: 20%
Wide Receiver: 10%

1980s:
Running Back: 60%
Quarterback: 30%
Wide Receiver: 10%

1990s:
Quarterback: 40%
Running back: 40%
Wide Receiver: 10%
Cornerback: 10%

2000s:
Quarterback: 80%
Running back: 20%

2010s (to date, including 2017 expected winner Baker Mayfield):
Quarterback: 88%
Running back: 12%

So, pre-2000, you had a split of 20 quarterbacks (31%), 36 halfback/running backs (55%), and 9 other (14%).

From 2000 on, you have a split of 15 quarterbacks (83%) and 3 running backs (17%).

Of course, the game has changed over time and the award reflects that change, but it seems there's very little intrigue outside of "who's quarterbacking a top-15 team really well right now?"
 



My potentially controversial POV: the Heisman is effectively pointless now that the quarterback is so insanely crucial to the success of a football team. The trophy has become "the best QB on a very good team" award, unless a top-ranked team is led by an exceptional running back.

By decade, the breakdown of Heisman winning positions:

...

So, pre-2000, you had a split of 20 quarterbacks (31%), 36 halfback/running backs (55%), and 9 other (14%).

From 2000 on, you have a split of 15 quarterbacks (83%) and 3 running backs (17%).

Of course, the game has changed over time and the award reflects that change, but it seems there's very little intrigue outside of "who's quarterbacking a top-15 team really well right now?"

Great analysis. I guess intuitively I knew it had become more QB's than it used to be, but those numbers are pretty telling.

I wonder if we'll ever see a position other than RB and QB win it again?

So, it’s squabbling about money.

Do former Heisman winners get money? Just wondering how that would come into play?
 


He had another nice year and is only a Junior. His rating of 151.5 is higher than his 148.8 in 2016.

I guess that goes back to support Gopher07 in that there isn't much hype since his team wasn't as good this year.
 

I guess that goes back to support Gopher07 in that there isn't much hype since his team wasn't as good this year.

I would agree with that, yes.

In 2016, FSU was #2 when they played. He chucks for a TD and runs 4. Win by 43.
In 2017, Louisville beats them by 3.
 



Great analysis. I guess intuitively I knew it had become more QB's than it used to be, but those numbers are pretty telling.

I wonder if we'll ever see a position other than RB and QB win it again?



Do former Heisman winners get money? Just wondering how that would come into play?

Cliffs notes version of this article:

The board is full of old guys that don’t market well.
The former winners want a seat on the board.
The trust is 19 million and they are stingy with money.
The board didn’t help Salaam when he was depressed and broke.

I’m sure there is a whole lot more than that in the behind the scenes politics, but this was a poorly written article that never really crystallized just what the winners are upset about - I still don’t quite understand. The Heisman still seems as hyped and prestigious (and overrated) as ever in my mind.
 

I'm seeing two things:

1) Beban's kid wrote the article. Though the senior Beban had professional success, he seems to not get enough attention. They probably talked about the Heisman every night at dinner. He should hang with Jim Carter.

2) The Heisman is not paying the former winners enough money to go to the event. I guess they could, but I also think there is also a massive ego problem here. "My Heisman was better than your Heisman" d!ck comparisons? Of course, the biggest egos always cloak it in "respect" comments.

My potentially controversial POV: the Heisman is effectively pointless now that the quarterback is so insanely crucial to the success of a football team. The trophy has become "the best QB on a very good team" award, unless a top-ranked team is led by an exceptional running back.

Totally buy it.
 

I don't know if people really care that much about this award.
 

It's lost its luster with me. The game has significantly changed in favor of passing offenses with padded passing & TD stats. It's mostly QBs and the occasional RB/FB/HB that get the accolade. The Heismans should make an effort to recognize the contribution of other position players in both offense and defense.
 



Heisman has been a joke and it's only confirmed in the years where the best player is clearly a guy like Suh but they won't give it to a non skill guy. OR when its clearly a guy like Fitz but they give it to a QB like Jason White who puts up big numbers on a top team even though everyone knows he's just a cog in the system.
 




Top Bottom