Big 10+1 Commisioner

[tvolsfan]

You're talking expertly about a Heisman race that occurred when you were 5. He can go back as far into the past as he wants as far as I'm concerned.

I was 6 thank you very much. :no:

 

[rwemyss]

But how many times in the last few years has it been wrong. Peyton had his shot, but he lost it.

The Vols never lost a game BECAUSE of Manning. They lost IN SPITE of him.

 

[Ohio Vol]

Troy Smith was a product of that offensive system. If you put Justin Zwick into it, he was destined to fail in much the same way that Eric Crouch would collapse in a David Cutcliffe scheme.

And by the same token, Troy Smith in a scheme patterned for Zwick would've been average at best.

 

[Tenn_Vol_Authority]

It's hard to agree with that. Woodson certainly was outstanding that year. The bottom line is he came through with championships on the line, so that certainly swung people his way.

Propaganda moved the Heisman voting... not what happened on the field.

 

[tvolsfan]

And Michigan won BECAUSE of Woodson.

 

[tvolsfan]

The award isn't given for TEAM accomplishment! It is for whoever is the best player, bar-none in college football. :crazy:

And it was Woodson.

 

[GAVol]

And Michigan won BECAUSE of Woodson.

Which games would you say he won?

 

[The Dude]

Yes, let's bring up something that far in the past, and blame it on Notre Dame.

Sorry, it's a part of the history of the award and shows the award is false in nature.

 

[kptvol]

How so? Ohio State's offense was clicking with Smith in the game, without it they lost.

Nope. They were alternating throughout the game. Both of them did OK. Then Smith led a TD drive and they never put Zwick back in. During the time when both were playing, their performance was about equal. If Smith were so clearly better, he could have easily beat Zwick out. He had numerous opportunities.

 

[justingroves]

And Michigan won BECAUSE of Woodson.

Actually Tim Biakabutuka.

 

[tvolsfan]

Which games would you say he won?

Ohio State they wouldn't have won without him almost for sure.

 

[rwemyss]

And Michigan won BECAUSE of Woodson.

The fact that he only put 6 points on the board all season would say otherwise...

 

[Tenn_Vol_Authority]

Actually Tim Biakabutuka.

Was Biakabutuka on that team?

 

[tvolsfan]

The fact that he only put 6 points on the board all season would say otherwise...

His defense certainly helped out, too.

 

[kptvol]

Ohio State they wouldn't have won without him almost for sure.

That's not a crazy statement. Saying that without him they wouldn't make .500 is.

 

[justingroves]

Nope. They were alternating throughout the game. Both of them did OK. Then Smith led a TD drive and they never put Zwick back in. During the time when both were playing, their performance was about equal. If Smith were so clearly better, he could have easily beat Zwick out. He had numerous opportunities.

Smith would never have lost the starting job had he not been suspended for the Alamo Bowl the year before

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

That's not a crazy statement. Saying that without him they wouldn't make .500 is.

Okay, you are correct to say they wouldn't have gone .500 was a stretch but I don't believe they win the Big Ten with Zwick or anyone else they had on that team at QB...fair enough?

 

[rwemyss]

His defense certainly helped out, too.

Yeah, but that Griese guy was worthless to the effort of winning... :crazy:


If it was all about Woodson, they would have tied all but one game, 0-0.

 

[GAVol]

Ohio State they wouldn't have won without him almost for sure.

My point is, you're doing nothing other than spouting a line that the media put out there. You didn't see a single play from that year, yet you're handing the Heisman to Woodson. I'm not calling you out for being young; just pointing out that this is EXACTLY what happened in 1997. ESPN/ABC got behind Woodson and effectively managed his campaign for him in an effort to draw ratings .

 

[kptvol]

Smith would never have lost the starting job had he not been suspended for the Alamo Bowl the year before

I'm pretty sure that year Zwick was the starter at the beginning of the season. The Buckeyes lost a few games. Tressel changed the offensive playcalling. He put in Troy Smith and also started using Ted Ginn. A lot of stuff helped the Buckeye offense. Not all of it was benching Zwick.

 

[kptvol]

Okay, you are correct to say they wouldn't have gone .500 was a stretch but I don't believe they win the Big Ten with Zwick or anyone else they had on that team at QB...fair enough?

Possibly. They still would have won 10 games. They probably would have won 8 or 9 with me at QB.

 

[tvolsfan]

That's not a crazy statement. Saying that without him they wouldn't make .500 is.

I think we are discussing something else.

 

[justingroves]

Possibly. They still would have won 10 games. They probably would have won 8 or 9 with me at QB.

As long as you could hit Ginn in stride

 

[tidwell]

This thread is moving too fast, fyi.

 

[tvolsfan]

My point is, you're doing nothing other than spouting a line that the media put out there. You didn't see a single play from that year, yet you're handing the Heisman to Woodson. I'm not calling you out for being young; just pointing out that this is EXACTLY what happened in 1997. ESPN/ABC got behind Woodson and effectively managed his campaign for him in an effort to draw ratings .

My point is you guys probably all loved Manning, and were hoping he would win the whole time. Just because the media may at times show bias, doesn't mean it is always wrong. Woodson had an unbelievable year that year, and it was hard to not pick him that year.