Why Toby Gerhart Didn't Win the Heisman

Update: Compare Mark Ingram to the last RB to win the Heisman, Reggie Bush. Did Reggie Bush lead the nation in rushing that year? Not even close. Two guys, DeAngelo Williams and Jerome Harrison, had more yards. Williams had over 200 yards more than Bush. And Williams did so for a decent team who won a bowl game that - like Stanford - is traditionally horrible. As for Harrison, true his team only went 5-7, but he means that Bush wasn't even the leading rusher in his conference, and again it wasn't close! (Now Ingram wasn't the leading rusher in his conference either, but it is you guys who are making the numbers argument)! Williams also had more TDs than Bush, Harrison had the same number, AND LENDALE WHITE HAD 24 RUSHING TDS TO 16 FOR BUSH!

And how important was Bush to a team that had a 3000 yard passer, two 1000 yard rushers, and 2 1000 yard receivers? Going back to the two 1000 yard rushers part, Bush didn't even lead USC in rushing or carries in every game!

And Bush was nowhere near the most important player on his team. To speak nothing of DeAngelo Williams, VINCE YOUNG WAS. He led Texas in passing AND rushing. That was a fact that USC fans saw in the Rose Bowl, remember?

So make a single argument for Gerhart over Ingram that doesn't also apply for Bush over Young, Williams and Harrison. You can't. That's why it proves my point whether you will acknowledge it or not.

First, I want to clear up a popular misconception that seems to exist among those who believe that Toby Gerhart lost the Heisman to Mark Ingram, which appears particularly galling since Gerhart won the Doak Walker award for best RB (as well he should have since he led all RBs in rushing and TDs). Please understand how the Heisman works: voters almost never directly compare one player to another. That only happens when the Heisman contest is basically a two-man race during the final weeks. In years where there are no consensus top two candidates like this one, and when the candidates under consideration play different positions (QB, RB, DT) for teams with different systems (pro-style, option, spread) and in different circumstances (from 13-0 national title contenders to 4 loss teams) direct comparisons are meaningless. People only do it in order to justify eliminating a particular candidate in favor of another candidate that they already like. So, "Gerhart had better numbers than Ingram!" is only good for a Gerhart supporter who wants to eliminate Ingram. It is totally useless for comparing Gerhart to the field i.e. Colt McCoy, Tim Tebow, Ndamukong Suh.

So, Mark Ingram did not beat out Toby Gerhart for the Heisman. Instead, Ingram beat out THE FIELD. Where the arguments for Gerhart over Ingram are great, but the arguments for Gerhart over everybody else aren't nearly as good. It is a conundrum common to Pac-10 fans who often get upset at what they perceive to be SEC teams being chosen over USC for the national title game. It is true, in a head to head comparison, USC often has a better case than the SEC team when both finish with the same record. However, the competition is not between USC and the SEC team for one spot, but between USC and EVERYBODY for TWO spots. What usually winds up happening is that where USC has a great case against the SEC team, their case against the other contenders for the title spot isn't nearly as strong.

So, the issue should be why Gerhart did not beat the field.

1. The Heisman DOES NOT go to the best player. Everyone acknowledges that. If it did, the Heisman would not have gone to an RB or QB every year but thrice (CB/WR/RS Charles Woodson, WR Tim Brown, WR/RS Desmond Howard) since anyone can remember. (And quite frankly, if it did, then Ndamukong Suh is your guy rather than Gerhart anyway, and if you don't believe me take the opinion of pretty much every NFL coach, general manager and scout.) Instead, the Heisman goes to "the most outstanding player." That is generally taken to mean the player who had the most impact on the college game i.e. the most influential player or the biggest story. Also, the award is truly not limited to an individual year, but with an eye towards history. So, they try to give it to someone whose award will seem justified and deserving 20-30 years from now. That is why "lifetime achievement awards" like those given to Ricky Williams and Ron Dayne for breaking the NCAA career rushing mark are given out. (The Heisman voters like significant records in general, which is why Tim Tebow got the award for being the first player to rush for 20 TDs and pass for 20 TDs in a season.) It is also why they favor QBs and RBs for the #1 team, guys who come up with big performances in big games, and guys who make eye-popping highlight reel plays.

2. The Heisman DOES NOT go to the guy with the best statistics, even if he is on a winning team. The truth is that the Heisman RARELY goes to the player with the best statistics. Instead, big numbers  (or the best numbers) only help IF they are in context of the principle stated in #1. Did the guy with the best numbers break any significant records? Did he pass a milestone (i.e. 2000 rushing yards or 5000 passing yards)? Did he win any big, nationally significant games? Did he compile an electrifying highlight reel? Having the best numbers is something that clinches the deal only if those numbers are in the context of having an impact on the college game. That's why Navy tailbacks and Texas Tech QBs are rarely if ever serious Heisman contenders. It's also why Chase Keenum - who unlike Toby Gerhart actually was the most statistically dominant player in college football this year - didn't even get an invite.

3. Regional bias does matter, but it is not the evil thing that west coast people claim it to be. Yes, "east coast bias" does hurt western players. (Although Pac-10 folks need to be honest: their definition of "east coast" is overly large, and that is an understatement.) Look, only 10 of the 65 major college programs are west of Texas, ok? Further, only 28 of the 120 major college programs are west of Texas. (Even the WAC and the Mountain West have TCU and Louisiana Tech in them.) Do Pac-10 fans honestly think that they have the best teams and players EVERY SINGLE YEAR? If you do, well so do Big East, ACC, SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 fans and voters. As it is, Pac-10 players and teams do pretty well for themselves. No Big East player has won the Heisman since 1992. No ACC player has won the Heisman since 2000. And no RB or WR from the Big East or ACC has EVER won the Heisman.

And as for the BCS that allegedly so mistreats the Pac-10, no Big East or ACC team has EVER received an at-large bid to a major bowl, either in the BCS era or in the old bowl system that preceded it. (And incidentally, before the BCS, where Pac-10 teams generally had little problem going to the Fiesta Bowl, it was extremely unusual for SEC teams to play in any major bowl game but the Sugar.) So, while it is true that in some instances regional biases may hurt the Pac-10, the truth is that the Pac-10 is actually overrepresented, doing quite well for itself despite being the only game in town (as far as major conferences are concerned) west of Texas.

After all, where Gerhart was within 28 votes of winning, the ACC's electrifying C.J. Spiller and his 2508 total yards (rushing, receiving, kick returns, punt returns) and 20 TDs didn't even get to the ceremony. Gerhart's reason for not winning was the same as the east coast player Spiller's reasons for not getting an invite: there was nothing that made his great numbers a major story for college football, either in this year or in a larger historical sense.

After all, are we to pretend that rushing for 144 yards per game for an 8-4 team that finished in a 3 way tie for second place in their conference and only beat one ranked team all year was the most significant story in college football this year, or for that matter would be in any year? That it was some record-setting performance? That it included huge efforts in games that people are going to talk about for years? Was it the stuff of highlight reels? Was it anything to make anyone who isn't a Stanford or Pac-10 fan take notice this year, let alone 10 years from now?

Are we to wax rhapsodic over Gerhart's huge games against 6-6 Notre Dame and 8-4 USC teams that gave up big yards on the ground all year? Now I certainly will grant the Oregon game, but there were bigger performances in big games, and big performances in bigger games. So, rather than believing that Gerhart lost because he was a Pac-10 player, it is extremely difficult to imagine how Gerhart would have even been a candidate had he played at any school but Stanford.

The simple truth is that guys put up numbers like Gerhart for teams similar to Stanford and never come anywhere near the award. Consider, for instance, Dion Lewis of 9-3 Pitt. Were the 9 fewer rushing yards per game enough to create so much distance between Gerhart and yet another excellent east coast RB who didn't even get invited to the ceremony? When Lewis had 47 carries for 194 yards and 3 TDs in the nationally televised 45-44 loss to 13-0 Cincinnati? (Pac-10 fans take note: Jacquizz Rodgers, second to only Gerhart among RBs in the Pac-10, only had 73 yards on 20 carries against that same Cincinnati defense, and that game was in Corvallis!) Yet where everybody in the college football world has heard of Gerhart, practically no one outside the Big East has heard of the freshman sensation Lewis. It appears to me that Gerhart fans have little to complain about.

4. Ndamukong Suh. The great Nebraska defender was basically a spoiler, knocking out two candidates. Before the Big 12 title game, the award was basically Colt McCoy's (who broke the record for wins by a QB, currently has the highest completion percentage in NCAA history, and yes his team is 13-0) although McCoy's average season made him vulnerable with a bad performance. Thanks to Suh, McCoy's performance was not just bad but atrocious, dropping him behind both Ingram and Gerhart. Now had McCoy merely had a bad game, then Gerhart would have won. However, by so thoroughly individually outplaying the Heisman frontrunner head to head in what was the most dominating performance of the season, Suh's own candidacy greatly benefited, but at Gerhart's expense. Suh got a lot of votes that would have otherwise gone to Gerhart, particularly the critical second and third place votes. Also, McCoy's collapse (caused by Suh) helped Suh and Ingram far more than it did Gerhart. Gerhart would have very likely finished #2 to McCoy had he played so much as an average Big 12 title game, with Ingram likely coming in 3rd. But McCoy's collapse created an opening for another candidate, and Suh's rise kept Gerhart from being that candidate.

5. Mark Ingram's merit. Again, keep in mind, Ingram did not need to be a better individual player than Gerhart. This was not the Doak Walker award (Gerhart) or the Maxwell award (McCoy). Ingram merely needed to be deserving of the Heisman in his own right based on individual accomplishments. Were he not (as was the case with McCoy and Tebow), Gerhart wins it in a walk basically by default. More significantly, had Gerhart decided to go play pro baseball, no one except Suh supporters would be challenging Ingram's worthiness.

Being the best player for the best team - and yes everyone expects Alabama to beat Texas - is a national college football story, and something that will resonate when people look back on this award down the line. Further, look at the big games. In the season opener against then #7 Virginia Tech, a game many thought Alabama would lose because starters at QB, RB, and 3 OL positions (center and both OTs!) all moved on to the NFL, Ingram had 185 yards and 2 TDs rushing and receiving. In a midseason showdown with then #9 LSU, Ingram produced 174 yards rushing and receiving. And at the final year showdown against then #1 Florida, again a game many thought Alabama would lose, Ingram produced 189 yards and 3 TDs rushing and receiving. Claiming that those teams are or were "overrated" is specious, Virginia Tech, LSU and Florida are ranked #5, #11 and #12 in the BCS.

That is not all. Almost as impressive is how Ingram carried Alabama's offense through a difficult strech of 4 SEC opponents with winning records despite getting virtually no help from a struggling passing game. Against Kentucky, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Tennessee, Ingram's rushing output rivaled or exceeded the yards produced by the passing game, and often Alabama's only consistently effective offensive play was running Ingram out of the wildcat formation. So, as impressive as Ingram was in the Virginia Tech, Louisiana State and Florida "big games", we should not forget that had it not been for Ingram's 266 yards against South Carolina (in a game where the passing game only produced 92 yards, and Ingram was actually the leading WR that day with 2 catches for 23 yards!) and his 99 yards against Tennessee (Alabama only managed 256 total yards that day!) Alabama most certainly would have lost both games. Ingram is the reason why Alabama is #1 in the country right now rather than #3 in the SEC to Florida and LSU.

Many detractors point to Ingram's mediocre numbers. Please recall that Ingram barely played in blowouts against Florida International, Chattanooga and North Texas. Ingram had 29 combined carries in those games, where he had 28 in the Florida and Ole Miss games alone. While Arkansas seems to have done a great job on Ingram, holding him to only 71 total yards, Ingram still managed 2 TDs that day. Then there was the Auburn game, the 30 yard 1.9 per carry performance on national TV that nearly killed Ingram's candidacy, particularly when matched against huge days by Colt McCoy and Toby Gerhart, and even a good performance by Tim Tebow that same weekend.

Yet, even in that terrible outing, Ingram managed to have a key reception for a first down on the game-winning drive! Further, Auburn's strategy - to focus entirely on stopping Ingram and make everyone else beat them - very nearly worked, and only served to underscore the importance of Ingram to Alabama, as it took some of the better performances of the year from QB McElroy, backup RB Richardson, WR Julio Jones, and oft-underutilized TE Colin Peek to eke out a victory, especially as without Ingram controlling the football game Auburn received plenty of chances to score, and used them to score more points on offense than has any team this year.

So, if Ingram's leading an Alabama team that had new starters at QB, RB (Ingram himself!) and the 3 most important OL positions (C, LT, RT) to a 13-0 record against the 12th toughest schedule in the country according to Sagarin (incidentally TCU had the #82 schedule, Boise #98, Cincinnati #53, Nebraska #52 and Stanford #23) is not a Heisman-worthy season, then what does one look like? Claiming otherwise simply puts too much emphasis on numbers, and further does so in a year where there were few statistically dominant players (no RB averaged 150 yards per game, only Chase Keenum exceeded 325 yards per game among QBs, perhaps big numbers fans should have paid more attention to WRs like Golden Tate and Danario Alexander who averaged 125 yards a game instead?).

So, numbers are the only area where Ingram is deficient for the Heisman. He is as good or better in every other category. And not that Ingram's numbers are horrible: he was the first SEC player in SEC history to rush for over 1500 yards while logging 30 receptions. He produced 1864 yards and 18 TDs. So, the idea that Ingram "has mediocre numbers" against the nation's #12 schedule on a team with so many critical new pieces on offense is absurd, and is only being raised because of the head to head comparison with Gerhart.

Yes, Gerhart won ONE head to head comparison, superior rushing numbers, to the Ingram, and rightfully won the Doak Walker award because of it. But the Heisman is a different award. It considers more factors than numbers, and in those factors Gerhart did not outperform Ingram in any sense. Further, as stated earlier, basing Gerhart's case on numbers is silly because Gerhart's numbers were not as impressive as they were for fringe candidates Chase Keenum and Golden Tate, and truthfully were no better than Colt McCoy's 3500 yards and 27 TDs passing (at a 70.5% clip) and 348 yards and 3 TDs rushing on a team with no running game. (Actually, McCoy had 512 gross yards rushing, but lost 164 yards on sacks.) A person might reply "but McCoy looked pedestrian this year, especially against good teams." While just how badly McCoy allegedly played this year is something that can be debated (as McCoy was being judged negatively against his superior sophomore and junior seasons as opposed to this year alone - the same thing worked against Peyton Manning as a senior - and McCoy's WRs regressed this year, as not havin Quan Cosby as a 2nd option really hurt and no one else stepped up, so on a team with no running game it was basically McCoy throwing to Shipley on offense) that only exposes the folly of making numbers the primary determinant of who the most outstanding player is.

There is also the "Gerhart was more important to a Stanford team that would have won only 4 games without him" idea. Well, "most outstanding player in college football" is not analogous to "most valuable player to his team." Rest assured, college football was more deeply impacted by Alabama's being 13-0 as opposed to 9-3 (as LSU, South Carolina and Tennessee would have beaten Alabama without Ingram) than it would have been with Stanford being 8-4 instead of 4-8. Similarly, the idea that Alabama would have done just as well with Trent Richardson in the starting lineup is at best a fanciful exaggeration regarding a player who, while extremely talented and one of the top recruits in the nation, is nonetheless still a true freshman.

It simply discards the experience that Ingram gained as the #2 RB last year, and also that Alabama had to replace the QB, RB, LT, RT and center from an offense that really struggled at times. Alabama's offense should have been worse than last season, but instead it was better. The main reason for this was Ingram, and it would not have happened with a true freshman in the lineup, as Richardson is no Herschel Walker, and Alabama is certainly not running Georgia's "give it to Herschel 40 times a game" very simple offense, but instead a pro-style offense with a former Fresno State coordinator and NFL assistant Jim McElwain, which requires its starting RBs to be blockers and receivers. With Trent Richardson as the starting RB, Alabama would have had to run a much simpler offense.

In the final analysis, I have no problem who assert that Toby Gerhart was the better runningback, better player, and more important to this team than was Mark Ingram. As meaningful as those facts are, they are not what the Heisman is meant to honor. Instead, the Heisman honors the most outstanding player in college football. The decision that Mark Ingram was more outstanding than Toby Gerhart was a perfectly legitimate and justifiable one - and not one that was the product of racism or pernicious bias as many are claiming - even if Ingram was more outstanding only by a margin of 28 votes.