2015 Heisman. Who ya got?

McCaffrey is going to have a tough time because of the East Coast bias. I don't know how many voters stayed up for Stanford games, and he's a member of the worst team in the bunch. I feel he's got no shot. A distant third.

 

I think the East Coast bias is more of a factor than anything. I saw all of his games because my girlfriend is a Stanford grad (subtle brag), but I imagine I'm in the minority there. I'd be surprised if the fact that his team wasn't in the CFP played as much of a factor. It isn't like he was just a stat monster on a 7-5 team. Stanford is a conference champ that was an upset away from being in the playoff.

 

I'd go with McCaffrey because I think he's more versatile. In Henry, I feel like I've seen this movie before.

 

McCaffrey should win the award but probably won't win the award because he didn't play for the SEC or the Big 10. It will be the same problem Toby Gerhart had when he was up for the Heisman even though McCaffery has a better claim to the award than Gerhart. I will say there's no chance he's finishing "a distant third." That's ridiculous.

 

Paraphrasing what I said on the other thread, one key thing going against McCaffrey is his QB, Hogan, is pretty good. That's not to put down McCaffrey by any means, but Hogan's ability to scamper when needed (like his TD run against WAZZU which turned that game around) and get rid of it when needed will take away some of McCaffrey's glory. To me, that's a bigger issue for McCaffrey than any anti-Pac 12/West Coast bias.

 

When you hear broadcasters talk about "not a lot of people saw him play" because of the game times, they mean they didn't see him play. The guy generated more yardage than anyone in the history of the game over a season. But I get it - even in his "showcase" games (ND, Oregon) he didn't blow up and/or had another TV game competing for the audience.

 

The commentator at the Pac-12 championship game (I don't even know who he was) admitted that he had never seen McCaffrey play or done any research on him until preparing for this game. And he votes. That's his fault. They also said that most of Stanford's games started at 7:30 PT. That's the Pac-12's fault.

 

If your job is to follow college football and you didn't watch Stanford this year, you should fuck off.

 

I understand the various networks figuring they'll get their biggest audience in primetime in the west, but I don't know how many times the Pac-12 didn't have a single game in the 12:30 PT/330 ET window on national TV. And when you do push teams past 7 p.m., by all means make it the only game instead of splitting the audience. More than a few times, the P12 had three games start 7 p.m. or later, the fans who attend (or don't) don't like it, the schools don't like it and the teams don't like it.

 

Prediction:
1. Henry, Alabama
2. McCaffery, Stanford
3. Watson, Clemson

---invitation cutoff---

4. Mayfield, Oklahoma
5. Reynolds, Navy
6. Cook, Florida State
7. Fournette, LSU
8. Elliott, Ohio State

 

Another thing I've never understood... Why don't they just invite five guys every year? What good does it do to limit it? Give these kids some recognition and increase programming/stories for the broadcast. Seems like a win-win. I would love to see the kid from Navy there, even if he had no chance of winning.

 

It frequently ran past the TV window when they had five people there.