Should we be rooting against Colt winning the Heisman?

by utcopt on Oct 2, 2009 11:38 AM CDT Comment 39 comments

I know a lot has been made of the similarities between this year's team and the 2005 National Championship team, and rightfully so. I think we are in a great position to make a run this year, and hopefully win a second championship this decade.

I ran across another bit of history while perusing ESPN Insider ($) today. If we do win the title this year, this may just be an interesting piece of trivia in the future...

Since the preseason poll began in 1950, this is only the third time that the AP top 10 for Week 5 has included as many as four teams with a loss. In both previous years, 1963 and 1977, there was only one team in the nation with a perfect record at the end of the regular season, and both times it was Texas.
In 1963, the Longhorns were crowned national champs and went on to beat Navy and Heisman winner Roger Staubach in the bowl game. In 1977, Texas had the Heisman winner in Earl Campbell and lost its bowl game (and the national championship) to Notre Dame. Will history repeat itself in the regular season? If so, the Horns might be better off without Colt McCoy's winning the Heisman.

I, for one, hope that history repeats itself one more time.

Sorry Colt, but I'll take a championship over that overrated statue!

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 39 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

How many years has the Heisman curse been active?

That one is more freaky to me. Recent memory tells me as far back as 2004 the winner has lost their bowl game.

by TXinDC on Oct 2, 2009 11:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

my concern

Is not with any curse but with how the heisman race will affect McCoy’s performance on the field. As long as he is in the hunt, he may try to be too perfect, possibly explaining his subpar-for-him first three games this year. If he dropped out of the hunt completely, he would probably get pissed and just worry about beating the crap out of opponents instead of getting pissy every time a receiver dropped a ball because his completion percentage just went down.

Now, I don’t think this will make a difference and am pulling for Colt to win, but it is just a little concern – even if he doesn’t watch the news etc., there’s no way for the hype not to creep into his subconscious on some level and add a little pressure.

by Texastough on Oct 2, 2009 11:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

As far as I'm concerned

Top-tier teams are judged by two things: the number of Heisman winners and the number of National Championships won. Whether that’s a fair metric or not is debatable, but it is what it is.

Matt Leinart winning the Heisman didn’t derail his National Championship victory; there’s no reason that winning a Heisman will preclude Colt from doing the same.

Unless someone here is willing to do an extensive qualitative and quantitative study on the Heisman effect, it’s all hearsay and rumors like the SI Cover Jinx (which, oh by the way, didn’t affect a guy named Vince Young).

by jc25 on Oct 2, 2009 11:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

madden jinx

but you could say being on the cover of madden did

There's something spiritual about baseball — like Mother Nature," Garrido said. "You don't mess with it. And I think before a player can really believe in it, he has to experience it."

by dmurphnextrusygreer on Oct 2, 2009 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I will point you to this picture, and that is all I will do.

We need more lemons.

The swine flu takes a Will Muschamp shot every September.

by pleaseplaykindle on Oct 2, 2009 12:01 PM CDT reply actions 4 recs

Well done.

And that sig is outstanding.

by ctex80 on Oct 2, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll second that.

You make your point quite eloquently. You should be doing the statistics for network news. They need to know this type of information.

Hook Em!

by Margaritaking on Oct 5, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Being a believer...

in only empirical reality, which has provided thus far no evidence that curses actually exist, I’d have to say no.

Still, the consistency of Heisman failure, both in bowl games and then the NFL, causes me to wonder if there isn’t some practical issue at paly, such as psychology, or some logistical change in a player’s lifestyle, that does lead him to eternal mediocrity once he gets that award.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 2, 2009 12:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Has it really been that consistent?

Looking at the list of Heisman winners, I don’t really think you could say the group overall had consistent failure in bowl games or in the NFL.

by Wells on Oct 2, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Strange, I feel that list proves my point

I agree that sections of it look good (particularly 1976-88), but if you examine the list post-Barry Sanders, the mediocrity is glaring, you have 20 iterations that yield practically nothing.

A majority of the winners from this decade (Bradford, Smith, Bush, White, Crouch, etc.) crashed in their bowl games, and of the past 20 winners, you could argue that only Eddie George has had a successful professional career.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 2, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with Wells.... And you?

While the list clearly has exceptional college and pro talent successful at all levels, I think recently the college game and the pro game have coveted different skill sets, particularly at quarterback.

For some reason, that position just doesn’t translate into the pros as consistently as it used to. Eric Crouch, Troy Smith, even VY (a little), and anybody think Tebow has a brilliant career as an NFL quarterback ahead of him?

Compare that list to the time period you mentioned as excellent – Testaverde, Flutie, and about 2,652 Running Backs – who translate much better to the pro game.

The award has become much more quarterback driven, and so the list is much less “NFL Distinguished”.

If you look at Recent running backs, you have Geroge – good, Salaam – I don’t know much about, Ricky- great, when he wasn’t high and Ron Dayne – who I guess is a bust. Anyway, there is 2 cents……

"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese

by SwimTexas on Oct 2, 2009 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Woodson has had a very good NFL career. He’s been dinged up from time to time, but unlike Carson Palmer, he has generally kept performing after each injury.

by burntorangehorn on Oct 3, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still, even if you make that argument

against which, I think, an argument could also be made, you’d still have 18 of 20 relative busts.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 3, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, but I was just pointing out another exception to the general trend. Woodson probably won’t be HoF, but he’s been a great cornerback.

by burntorangehorn on Oct 3, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

1. You are counting 2 players that are still in college busts
2. One player on that list went on to a NBA career, hard to say he was a bust.
3. It is a little early to call Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, or Troy Smith busts.
4. Desmond Howard was a Super Bowl MVP.

So 9-10 could really be called busts at this point by my count. That does not meet my standard of consistant.

by Wells on Oct 3, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

10 would still be an atrocious

track record for college football’s “most outstanding player,” but I think you’re just being contrarian. I stand by what I wrote. Desmond Howard is not defined by one game; his career never really lived up to expectations. The paths that Leinhart and Bush are currently on point in the same direction, so it would take a real shift in the middle parts of their careers for them to deviate from the pattern. In the end, you’re still dealing with at least 80% of the Heismans over the past two decades not fulfilling their expected glory.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 4, 2009 2:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And regarding...

the two still in college, each lost his bowl game the year he won his Heisman, and each is currently recovering from a serious injury.

You can’t tell me with a straight face that the past generation of Heisman winners has consistently fared well.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 4, 2009 2:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess it depends on perspective

If the Heisman was really about picking the most outstanding NFL draft pick, then you are right it is atrocious. And even if it was about picking the best college football player, it probably has not done a great job. But the Heisman to me seems like it is about picking the most outstanding player on offense on a team that is in contention for the national championship. In that regard I don’t think it has done that bad. And it has definitely not been consistently bad in my opinion, I think that implies a track record better (or worse depending on how you look at it) than 50 or 60%.

by Wells on Oct 4, 2009 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I see it a bit like a high school valedictorian...

The Heisman may neither be the best college player, nor the best professional prospect, but he is generally one of the best players who, through his own talent, along with varied circumstance, has had outstanding collegiate success. By the same token, a valedictorian may not be the smartest student in a given class, or the most ambitious worker, rather is simply one of the smarter students who through circumstances edged out some competitors for the highest GPA.

My point is (and I have no proof of this whatsoever so perhaps I am completely wrong), I suspect that if we researched the typical HS valedictorian, he/she is probably living a life that is appropriate toward our expectiations. They won’t all be governers and CEO’s, but I would expect to see above-average success, whether that be a quick climb up the corporate ladder, or a decent research grant, or solid self-employment. Sure, there will be a few exceptions, but I’d bet we’d find something reasonably close to what we expected.

But looking at the last 20 Heismans is almost like examining 20 valedictorians, most of whom either didn’t even finish college, or have been laid off from several consecutive jobs.

A Heisman winner doesn’t need to be Tom Brady, or even a Hall-of-Famer; to deflect charges of disappointment. I think a reasonable expectation for a Heisman winner (if he is a “pro-style” player) is that he be perhaps one of the best 4 players on his professional squad, which would put him in the top 120-150 players in the league. Oddly, I think there are only a couple of guys on that list for whom you could even make that argument.

And as you point out, many Heismans are “college-type” players who aren’t expected to do well in the NFL, but much of the “curse” talk comes from the inability of these guys even to continue their collegiate success, as Bradford, Tebow, Smith, Bush, White, Crouch, and Weinke all lost their bowl games (that’s just from this decade), and many of the returners (White, Leinhart, Bradford) have each had less success in the year following his award.

Obviously the fault for that is not entirely their own, but you seem to be wondering where the notion of a “curse” has come from.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 5, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

It seems like their record in the post Heisman bowl games is more convincing than the NFL ability, which does not directly apply. Looking at the list, unless you are a QB at USC or a running back who just broke the total yardage record, you don’t have a very good chance at winning your bowl game.

by Wells on Oct 5, 2009 7:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, I think it is more position than anything

Great College quarterbacks don’t necessarily have the same skill sets that great Pro Quarterbacks need. So when a quarterback wins the award, like Eric Crouch, it doesn’t necessarily mean he will translate to the next level.

"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese

by SwimTexas on Oct 5, 2009 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Colt Breaks Every Mould

Root for him, Root loud and root often. Don’t worry about a drop off. Bring on the Heisman, the O’Brien Award, and the MNC. Bring on the NFL draft and who knows may be even Colt for Governor some day? The young man has earned his due.

by orangetower on Oct 2, 2009 3:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I dont really get this curse business. Its like last year during the whole OU vs UT game the announcers were like only once in the past 10 years has the lower ranked team won. And then we won. Notre Dame has won 42 straight games against Navy. Then they lose to Navy. Michigan has beaten 600000 straight FCS teams. Then they lose to App State.

by MJY6087 on Oct 2, 2009 5:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

actually

Michigan’s loss to Appalachian State was remarkable in that it was the first and only time they have ever played a D-IAA school.

I Am The 12th Man.com

by Beergut on Oct 5, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So Michigan is winless against AA schools?

comical

If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!

by circa1015 on Oct 6, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with MJY6087...

Anytime I hear or read stats like this I try to remind myself that you don’t have beat all time history, you only have to beat whoever you are playing at that time. Colt could win the Heisman and a MNC and it wouldn’t signify a defeat over everything that has happened the last decade (and further), but only a Heisman and MNC for this year. What is so improbable about a Heisman winner also winning the MNC?

by longhorn10 on Oct 2, 2009 9:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

its not a jinx. its what happens on the field.

if you seriously think a metal trophy is going to hinder Colt’s football playing ability you are mistaken.

by acho81 on Oct 3, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would like to pose a theory

Two teams that are matched up in a National Championship game have, for all intents and purposes, achieved the same amount of success during the season. One team has a Heisman winner, the other doesn’t. If we can trust that the Heisman is a genuine reward for the outstanding abilities of that player (as opposed to it being awarded to an undeserving player), then the team that has that player, other than that one outstanding athlete, will be just a little bit worse than the team that doesn’t have a Heisman winner, as they didn’t accomplish anything more than the other team, despite having the best player in the country. Thus, the team without the Heisman winner will have the better team, but not the best player. Given four weeks to prepare for a game, it isn’t that hard for a defense to create a scheme that can take away one player from a game, so the team without the Heisman winner will then have the advantage.

2008 – Florida over OU
2007 – Michigan over Florida
2006 – Florida over OSU
2005 – Texas over USC
2003 – USC over Oklahoma

The list can go on and on. In bowl games (especially ones of such high caliber), you often get teams who are just great teams vs. teams who have been carried by outstanding individuals, and it isn’t hard to figure out who will win those matchups, especially during bowl season. Looking back over the list of bowl games featuring Heisman winners, each of the losses by the team with the Heisman winner is distinct in that that player was very obviously taken out of the game. Bradford, Tebow, Smith, Bush, none of them were close to reaching the standards they set during the regular season, and their teams weren’t prepared for any contingencies.

If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!

by circa1015 on Oct 3, 2009 6:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Heisman pointless

As I recall, before Colt started getting consideration, the opinion around here was that the Heisman process was seriously flawed and that the award really meant nothing. I still believe that. Oh, it would be nice for McCoy to get the recognition he deserves, but I’m pretty confident his number is going to get retired no matter what happens.

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.

by Caradoc on Oct 3, 2009 10:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

its likely

but by no means certain

by acho81 on Oct 3, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Poor effort

Obvious statement is obvious.

"I live in the tower with Coach Brown." -Bevo

by run Bevo run on Oct 4, 2009 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that it is seriously flawed

and some large part of it is promotional gambit by the member schools. The bigger the schools (in terms of celebrity, at least in the eyes of the press) the better the chance their player has of winning…the field is little more than a validation or abnegation of the pre-season nominating process.

If we compare to the polling debacle, you would want your Heisman winner to be the one with the best resume, not the product of a series of power polls. But it tends to be that the voters are influenced by the power polls more than the actual resume. It’s a media stampede at the end and not a place where good sense generally presides.

We don’t need no stinking Heisman; we’ll remember Colt just as he was these four years.

by whills on Oct 5, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And besides, if Colt continues to keep on playing like he does (5 INTs already), then he can say bye bye to the Heisman.

by MJY6087 on Oct 3, 2009 11:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Colt won't win the heisman

Every time I come up with my idea of who will win the heisman they fall apart the next game. So far, WK1- Colt. WK2 – Colt. WK3 – Tebow. WK4 – Jahvid Best. WK5 Case Keenum. For Week 6 I’m going to pick either Tebow or the entire Buffaloes Team.

by 2Bearnest on Oct 5, 2009 2:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Colt just needs to forget about the Heisman and win games

The little dinky passes won’t win the Heisman even at 85%, sorry. The INTs are a big ole giant mustard stain, sorry. And, you have to air out the long ball for the highlight reel to win the Heisman, sorry. But, If you win all your games and UT is set for the National Championship game then I think he wins it anyway.

by sam0807 on Oct 7, 2009 12:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs