Talk:Heisman Trophy/Archive 1

Misstatement in AGE section
"Darren McFadden came in second to Troy Smith as a sophomore, and in 2007 he will be the only active college player with top-three Heisman placement as an underclassmen." This is untrue as Tim Tebow, an underclassmen, will definitely finish in the top three this year. I don't know enough about wikipedia to correct it, but I know that it is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edcoxflorida (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on last 5 heisman winners
Some jackass put trace burgess as the heisman and runner ups for 2002-2006. I'm not a wikipedia person so I didn't mess with linking and whatnot but I changed them back to the best of my knowledge (which is always accurate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.57.194 (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo
I am somewhat incredulous that we do not have an actual picture of the trophy, only the logo. If someone could furnish a photo, that'd be great. Yeaaaah...Isopropyl 02:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, a photo would be really nice. Isopropyl 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Photo added. It was on Commons! I think there should still be more, from different angles, so keep an eye out. -- MECU ≈ talk 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OJ
I am removing the bit about OJ Simpson. Is it really necessary? I think Herschel Walker, Pat Sullivan, Bo Jackson, etc. are just as well known. This article should be about Heisman winners, not celebrity trials

Why long runs of players in the same position?
Looking at the list of the players' positions, it seems like there are long runs where the award is won by a player in the same position as the previous year's winner. Does this reflect fashion, the taste of particular award-committee members, changes in the style of play, or is it just a coincidence? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Heisman has typically gone to backfield stars; namely Quarterbacks and running backs, mostly because they're the most "visible" players on a team.

Current Favorite
I am removing the paragraph that talks about the players currently in the running for a heisman since it is pure speculation. Small black sun 17:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If it were the speculation of Wikipedia editors it would be removable, but reporting on the informed speculation of experts is encyclopedic. It would be better to find a specific source, which I will do later tonight. Johntex\talk 20:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does this section keep reappearing? A dictionary contains facts. A particular contributors opinion that Reggie Bush is the frontrunner for the 2005 Heisman is not a fact. Also, the fact that the favorite changes from week to week makes this more appropriate for wikinews that wikipedia. This section shouldn't be here for the same reason we don't have a college football scoreboard or a stock ticker on wikipedia. --djrobgordon 08:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Current Favorite Redux
Well, the comparison of the event, Heisman Trophy recipient and that of a stock ticker or a particular game day outcome are poor comparisons: The stock ticker is effectively continuous and never ending and any given game is but a part of a larger picture, the season. The Heisman is a definitive event.

For someone intent on learning about the Heisman, it would probably be helpful to have some indication of who the projected winners might be as that information is given at the beginning of the season. Additonally, anticipated nominees don't change that dramatically over the season.

Furthermore, wikipages are replete with topics that are changing and are often depicted as "current events." I think outstanding performances such as Reggie Bush's at the Fresno State game merits attention as that may be the defining moment that sways votes. Often outstanding performances in November solidify votes behind a long standing contender. In fact, voters are looking for these very breakout performances to point to for validity that the athlete represents the best college football player.

It would also be nice to learn more about the winner and what fact or statistics merited the trophy and the 2005 season was a perfect opportunity to start doing this.

If wikipedia is meant only to inform on the past and topics that are static then someone needs to let Jimmy Wales in on this so that many, many pages and their topics are deleted until a final outcome is learned. Really, this is a digital medium and a whole lot can be done that is informative. It would be nice if sites as this and other topics were "one stop" rather than having to learn about a topic by researching various sites.

Reason for DAC closing
The DAC was in SERIOUS financial trouble prior to 9/11. I have changed the language on the reason for the DAC closure from "in large part" due to 9/11 to "in part" due to 9/11. Kgwo1972 23:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Parenthetical tallies in winners list
I think the tallies in the main chart of winners are distracting. Also, with the summary charts below, they are redundant. Anyone else have an opinion on it? — Bellhalla 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they're redundant and distracting. If nobody objects, take them out. --djrobgordon 16:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since there seem to be no objections, I will remove them. — Bellhalla 13:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The new charts look great, much easier to read. --djrobgordon 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll remove the description that made me wonder "where are the parentheses?" --- John of New Yawk 10:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

2005 winner
I removed this content:


 * Bush was unable to lead his team to a National Championship however in the 2006 Rose Bowl Game against Texas. Texas' win caused many to think that Vince Young (the trophy runner-up) should have won.

The winning or not winning of a national championship doesn't seem really relevant since the award is given out before the championship game. In addition to the weasel words, the above content is also unsourced opinion. With appropriate citations — say, columnists who might have expressed that particular opinion — it would be appropriate in an encyclopedic work. (And in the interest of disclosure, I'm a Texas fan and thought Vince Young should have won the award in the first place.) — Bellhalla 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Auburn
The comment in the trivia section about 2 Auburn winners seems unnecessary and I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgawitzer (talk • contribs)

Disagree with paragraph
"The trophy serves in part as a representation of a collegiate player's chances in professional leagues, such as the NFL (to which many Heisman winners go after their collegiate careers). Most Heisman winners have amazingly high stock, and are considered among the absolute best players available on draft day on any given year."

Does anybody else not agree with this statement? The Heisman Trophy is not an indicator of how well one will do in the NFL. It is the best college player, not the player that will do the best in the NFL. Look at some of the recent winners that did not, or have yet to, make a mark in the NFL: Jason White, Eric Crouch, Chris Weinke, Ron Dayne, Danny Wuerffel, etc.--NMajdan •talk 13:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Troy Smith from OSU will be another great example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.3.2 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 May 2007

I absolutely agree. There are heaps of Heisman winners/NFL busts but there are even more Heisman also-rans who became NFL Hall of Famers. There are plenty of Heisman winners who are dismissed as the "absolute best" NFL prospects even before they have accepted the trophy (e.g., Troy Smith). At the height of college football season and interest in the Heisman (and the Heisman race) this passage should be altered or deleted. --Countryroads 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By Position...
Somewhere the math is wrong, Charles Woodson was a defensive back, but there isn't a defensive back listed on the Winners by Position Listing. Batman2005 01:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Woodson only caught 12 passes in 1997. If he is a cornerback / (something), it should be cornerback / punt returner. 24.9.73.177 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Winners Vote
Does anyone know if Archie Griffin (1974, 1975 - Ohio State) gets to vote twice? Two wins/two votes seems fair, as a different winner would be permitted to cast a vote. Further, if Griffin is permitted only one vote, there is an underrepresentation in votes from Ohio State. Would it clarify things to state that Ohio State has six Heismans, but five winners? Perhaps that belongs under "trivia." Full disclosure: I find Troy Smith (QB, OSU) quietly admirable and an excellent choice. I would like to know if Griffin is permitted to throw two votes his way. FurPaw 00:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)FurPaw

Archie gets only one voteTheMan232 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Griffin only gets one vote, but I would like to know the basis for your assertion. If it is legitimate, perhaps this belongs as part of the encyclopedic entry and not on the discussion page. FurPaw 07:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it on an interview with Archie on ESPNnews. I didn't put it in the article because I have no way to source the statement. TheMan232 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Brady Quinn
Quinn has not won the award for 2006 --it hasn't been handed out yet. Sorry, I don't have much experience with Wiki, but this error is pretty obvious as of this writing (11/24/06)Ah! Someone changed this as I wrote this. Thanks.

How does one get 9 Heisman Trophies from Ohio State??? I count 6...

Reverted change specifying Smith as winner
I just reverted a change made by an anonymous editor claiming to be a representative from the Yale Club that said he had been informed the Troy Smith will win. While I'm sure everybody that follows college football pretty much assumes Smith will win, the award has not been handed out yet. To the anonymous editor, Wikipedia does not allow original research or unverified claims which your edit is both. While I won't go as far as not believing who you say you are or what you know, I will say that despite that Wikipedia's guidelines and rules do not permit the information you posted. Yet.--NMajdan •talk 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but even the best journalists write obituaries in advance. This is pretty much obvious. Wouldn't it be awesome to just let the almost-truth to hang there, in the Internet air for a minute or two? How many people would see it? What would they think? Would chaos reign supreme throughout the world? I don't know. Has this ever happened before? I guess this source just isn't for the fatalists.132.162.250.118 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not the Yale Club guy, by the way. Full disclaimer: I am writing from Ohio, though. Sorry to bother, I'm just being a spectator. Carry on. 132.162.250.118 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The best journalists typically aren't the ones writing obituaries. Those who do write things in advance don't write the entire story, they'll write as much background context and sure information they can, then leave the blanks to be filled in until later, or in a case like this, they may write all three articles, leaving the blanks for the voting(Or two at the least).  And while Smith is the heavy favorite, he hasn't won yet.  Frankly, I think this article should be locked from anonymous edits until the event is done. It's not for people to plug their favorite into the slot. Hawk405359 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And, of course, I've been an idiot and didn't realize that I was reverting after it had announced that he had won, so just ignore what I have been saying. For those who have been reverting my editing, I apologize.  Hawk405359 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, Hawk. The New York Times obit for Lloyd Bentsen was written by David Rosenbaum. But whatever. I find it so hilarious you chose to counter THAT point of all points, and not even recognize the idea of letting the almost-truth hang in the "Internet air". Nobody wants to admit how none of this really matters. 132.162.250.118 18:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, typically, they aren't the ones obituaries. It takes a special situation for a top reporter to do write an obituary, and Lloyd Bentsen was a situation because of how high-profile he is.  On the day to day basis, they aren't.


 * As for letting it the almost truth hang in the air, I'll be the first to admit that what goes on in sports, the internet, and most everything else is pop culture is given too much importance and doesn't really matter. Hell, I've been arguing that for years.  I hold no qualms pointing out how trivial things really are.  However Wikipedia has become something it never should have been, an actual source, rather than a link to sources and such.  People use it as their source of information.  There, in itself, is a reason why those who care enough to watch a page should strive to keep it as accurate as possible, and that includes keeping erroneous information out of the articles.  Of course, my tone was a bit more serious in tone due to my annoyance at seeing the erroneous information in the article so frequently.  If Wikipedia was what it should be, it wouldn't matter, I agree. I did address that you wanted the concept to hang in the "internet air," in that I said I thought it should be locked from anonymous edits to prevent more fake edits.  As far as I'm aware, stating that we shouldn't let such edits remain is not only recognizing the idea, but responding to it. Hawk405359 06:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim Tebow
Its not even 2007 yet. Tim Tebow didn't win the 2007 Heisman, so I removed it. And in my opinion, Tebow is overrated and will never win the Heisman. Now, Matthew Stafford, thats a potential winner. User:Davidscharoun 19:30, 09 December 2006 (EST)


 * Today's selection of Tebow as the 2007 Heisman winner may set back your career as a football pundit! Chris Loosley (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Stafford? Surely you jest. Everyone knows that Jimmy Claussen is going to win 4 Heismans to go with his 4 titles at Notre Dame. (Please note that my tongue is planted oh-so-firmly in my cheek.)

You just watch. Stafford is the next big thing. And the Irish won't go far and they certainly won't be winning national titles anytime soon. As for Clausen, I predict he follows the Clausen family tradition of mediocrity. (see Casey and Rick)


 * Article talk pages are for discussing changes to the article itself. This is not a general college football discussion forum but there are thousands available on the 'Net; please take this to one of those. AU Tiger ʃ talk /work 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2006
Whoever added Troy smith really screwed up the charts...can someone fix it? I'm not gonna figure it out but the trivia section and charts are all screwed up and overlap eachother. ChopAtwa 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is being vandalized continuously. Can it be locked for a short period of time, until people get over their incessant desire to screw around with things for no real urpose?

I second that... I've checked this page a couple of times recently and it seems to be constantly vandalized... FantajiFan (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Runners Up
Shouldn't Runners Up who are in the NFL Hall of Fame (e.g. Bob Griese) also have asterisks? One would expect the key applies to the entire chart.

Drafting of Heisman recipients.
In the comprehensive chart of players and runner ups who have won the Heisman, a column should be added for those who have pursued a professional career, as some didn't play professionally afterwards. Anyways, what I would like to see a column denoting is who (or if) they were drafted by. This column need not go beyond this into the players full career, they may go to the players respective page for that. But I feel a column of who their rookie playing year was with would be an excellent addition to the table. Any of you have thoughts on this? Example: Year Player School Position Points Drafted (The drafted column would not list yes or not but simply a team name if yes an X if no.  Ideally the no for the draft column would simply be blank but this would be ascribed following some result being entered for ALL of the players.

Beyond this in their School column a possible addition to this which is relevant is what year of collegiate play they received the award or the nomination in respect to the runner ups. This would not greatly impact the layout of the table as the column would be very narrow. Year   Player             School       AYoA  (Academic Year of Award) 2006  Troy Smith     Ohio State    S      (S for Senior, etc)

Ga1lyons 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm against the first idea. I don't think who they were drafted by is really needed for this article, and I think the table of information is starting to get bloated. As for the second, I don't think a whole column is needed. Perhaps we could just state that they won it as a senior, since that is most likely year they won it, and otherwise use J for junior or So for Sophomore and F for freshman (any?) and just put it after their name. -- MECU ≈ talk 03:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your notion regarding the first portion. As far as the second, Year of award or nomination in regards to runner-ups, should have its own column. Why? this goes back to it maintaining each column giving only 1 order of information and should someone desire to sort by year of award they will be able to do so.

Heisman in popular culture
Should the dance/song the "heizman" (which includes mimicking the signature heisman push back) be included in the trivia? 70.144.220.70 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and so should "Do yor chain hang low" since it is an instant classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.3.2 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 4 May 2007

Well, I'd go with "no" because I've never heard of it and it sounds like nonsense to me. One opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

wrong link for "California" for 1975
Sorry, i just dont know how to fix it. It should be university of california, berkeley instead of what is linked to right now. Neodarksaver (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

3rd place from non-BCS schools
Can someone add that now Colt Brennan from Hawaii also came in third this year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XIcedEarthX (talk • contribs) 07:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The 3rd place winners aren't generally listed and there seems to be nothing special about him coming in third; as opposed to others that are listed in the article as having come in third, they did so when they were freshmen or sophomores. A non-BCS school is largely irrelevant in my book, Hawaii is still Division I FBS. If there's a good reason otherwise, please say so. MECU ≈ talk 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Heisman winners drafted into the NFL
"However, essentially every Heisman winner goes on to play in the NFL, and most are among the top draft picks. However, the 2006 Heisman Trophy winner, Troy Smith of Ohio State, was not drafted until the sixth round of the 2007 NFL draft."

This comment doesn't seem particularly salient considering the 2003 winner Jason White was not even drafted. Maybe he would make a better example than Troy Smith?

147.226.236.92 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

East of the Mississippi?
I'm pretty sure that for the first few years of the trophy, only individuals who played for schools east of the Mississippi River were elegible. This would most certainly be worthy of inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 65.11.234.132 (talk • contribs)
 * Being "pretty sure" isn't good enough, we need a reference. A book, magazine, (reliable) website or something to say such thing. Please sign all comments on talk pages using ~ . MECU ≈ talk 14:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well no shit, jackass. That's why I didn't just put it in the article. Though I'm sure I could just stick it in the article and the worst someone would do is put a [citation needed] on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.234.132 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try to be civil please. MECU ≈ talk 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)