English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This year Heisman winner Troy Smith played a horrible BCS Championship and is irrelevant in the Draft. I think after the bowl games where the best teams played each other you be able to elect the best football player that year.

2007-03-20 02:09:56 · 14 answers · asked by kallichen2000 1 in Sports Football (American)

14 answers

Who do you think should have won?

And the way Florida was beating Ohio State's line, there is not a quarterback in the NFL today who could have played better.

I imagine that Smith would have won despite the Championship game, as even the runner-up played a non-impact game versus Wisconsin.

And what does draft status have to do with winning a Heisman. Think Jason White, Eric Crouch, etc.

2007-03-20 02:17:15 · answer #1 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 3 0

if they did happen there would be some upside to it, I personally think that the heisman does do something to the players performance in the big game (like in 05 Vince had something to prove and reggie must have thought he was superman) which would explain why heisman winners don't do so well in the Big game

but the hesmian doesn't really have anything to do with the NFL it is a Colliegate award, and troy smith disserved it this year he was the most outstanding College player dispite the Championship Game
even if it was given after the championship game Troy still would have won it

2007-03-20 12:14:16 · answer #2 · answered by ImaGman 5 · 0 0

NO SIR. Troy Smith proved all season he grow to be a super sport QB different than for the final sport. he nevertheless might have gained the Heisman trophy. His margin of victory for triumphing the Heisman grow to be basically too plenty to lose over a million sport. Plus he led his group to a undefeated season and beat #2 Texas in Austin and beat #2 Michigan. He deserved the heisman. I additionally dont understand why people think of Smith had a undesirable sport. in case you observed the Florida sport it grow to be needless to say the Offensive strains fault.....they allowed too many sacks and gave no time for performs to strengthen. AND yet one extra reason is because of the fact on the top of the regularly happening season the final 3 applicants have been Smith, Quinn, and McFadden. after the bowl video games (a million freakin sport) how on the earth can Russell or leak or all of us else Take over 1st place? ill answer that! YOU CANT

2016-10-02 10:49:16 · answer #3 · answered by ghalieh 3 · 0 0

No, it shouldn't, the Heisman is supposed to go to who had the best SEASON, and the best COLLEGE player, not who would be the best in the NFL, because of coaching. Troy Smith had a good Heisman-worthy season. But, that doesn't mean he's going to do anythinng in the NFL. Believe me, I was mad when Reggie Bush won over Vince Young. But, Reggie Bush did have a little better college career than Vince. But, Vince is a much better NFL player. Watch my controversy. My teams are: Texas Longhorns. New Orleans Saints.

2007-03-20 03:24:11 · answer #4 · answered by Herb C 2 · 0 0

Yes absolutely. The best players often prove themselves on the biggest stage, so the fact that the award would be given out without witnessing what players do in the big games is preposterous. Forget that its not fair to players whose teams don't make a bowl. If you didn't carry your team to the 6-7 wins it takes to be bowl eligble you don't deserve Heisman consideration.
The past two years are prime examples. In the 2006 Rose Bowl Vince Young proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the best player in the country, while Reggie Bush with his Heisman already secured was a big detriment to his team with his botched lateral and proved he wasn't even that important to them since they didn't have him in, even as a decoy, on the all important 4th and 2 play that decided the game.
This year's bowl's demonstrated that Troy Smith wasn't the nations best player, the nation's best player, Jamarcus Russel had crushed Notre Dame.
I'm not arguing that the bowls should be our sole indicator of who should win the Heisman, but it does seem outrageous to make the decision without using them as a factor.

2007-03-20 03:23:32 · answer #5 · answered by jordanmclonghorn 2 · 0 1

The fact of the matter is is that the heisman trophy is an unimportant award. I am a huge college football fan and I did not even watch the selection show. Past winners dont even know where their trophies are. Chris Weinke... what ever happened to him. The heisman trophy is not a good bench mark for a start pro.

2007-03-20 02:15:21 · answer #6 · answered by seminole0885 3 · 1 0

No I don't think so because he had a great season all season long and I guess the pressure of a bowl game just made him play horrible. I would also like to add that SEC football is real football.

2007-03-20 10:00:13 · answer #7 · answered by RegBfan 2 · 0 0

IF the heisman went to the best player then yeah. Problem is the Heisman doesn't.

2007-03-20 02:58:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, because not all of the best players are on the best teams. It wouldn't be fair to someone on a team that did't make a bowl game, as they would have one less chance to show how good they are.

2007-03-20 02:20:07 · answer #9 · answered by seeinred06 3 · 0 0

No its just one game, no one is ever going to all agree that one player is that years college season. Just do it as has been done. It ain't broke don't fix it. The season is already too long, the award comes on an off weekend and we don't need it coming in late Jan.

2007-03-20 03:52:42 · answer #10 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers