Detmer and the Heisman

I see the debate rages on in the "Bold Predictions" thread about Detmer and his Heisman. Hopefully this can settle the debate.



As I pointed out in the thread, but it looks like it got lost because no one mentioned it, Detmer didn't just win, but he came in first in all 6 voting regions. He also won by a 305 point margin.



http://www.heisman.com/winners/t-detmer90.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



As the list below shows, 22 of the other 40 Heisman winners from 1971 to 2011 did NOT win all the voting regions or won by a smaller margin.



If Detmer's Heisman isn't legit, then there are 22 others since 1971 who are not legit either.



2011--Robert Griffin III (5 regions, 280 point margin)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/r-griffin11.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2009--Mark Ingram (4 regions--finished 3rd in the two other regions, 28 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/m-ingram09.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2008--Sam Bradford (4 regions, 122 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/s-bradford-08.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2007--Tim Tebow (5 regions, 254 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/t-tebow07.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2004--Matt Leinart (5 regions--finished 3rd in the other region)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/m-leinart04.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2003--Jason White (3 regions, 128 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/j-white03.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2002--Carson Palmer (233 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/c-palmer02.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2001--Eric Crouch (1 region--finished 3rd in two others, 62 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/e-crouch01.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(this is the one that deserves an * if we are going to give an * to one)



2000-Chris Weinke (4 regions, 76 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/c-weinke00.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1997--Charles Woodson (5 regions, 272 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/c-woodson97.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1996--Danny Weurffel (3 regions--3rd in one other, 189 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/d-wuerffel96.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1995--Eddie George (4 regions, 264 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/e-george95.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1992--Gino Torretta (4 regions)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/g-torretta92.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1989--Andre Ware (3 regions, 70 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/a-ware89.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1987--Tim Brown (5 regions)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/t-brown87.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1985--Bo Jackson (3 regions, 45 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/b-jackson85.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1981--Marcus Allen (5 regions)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/m-allen81.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1980--George Rogers (4 regions, 267 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/g-rogers80.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1978--Billy Simms (2 regions--3rd in one other, 77 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/b-sims78.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1977--Earl Campbell (5 regions)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/e-campbell77.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1973--John Cappelleti (3 regions--3rd in one and 5th in another)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/j-cappelleti73.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



1971--Pat Sullivan (2 regions, 152 points)

http://www.heisman.com/winners/p-sullivan71.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great post.

Also nice to separate the debate from the other thread. Thanks!

Mahalo nui loa



But what is missing from this post is that I do not think anyone, and certainly not I, agreed with the detractors. The point was that there were in fact a wide number of detractors. And the Deseret News article borrowed from the Washington Post documented that dissension quite clearly.



It was not that a bunch of people thought Rocket Ismail or Eric Bienemy should have won it - thus the unanimous choice - someone had to win - the detractors bemoaned the class being so weak that any of them would even be finalists.



And that article was written before Detmer then suffered 5 straight blowout losses.



That was all that The Bibster said. I would post that article link - but iPhone compatibility with this site does not seem to allow it.



Search as I indicated earlier. Find it and post it here.



There was controversy. No scandals. Just criticism of BY Who for not having played anyone and Detmer building stats in a system that would give any QB gaudy stats ala Houston in that timeframe - and a very weak class.



Repeating myself: The Bibster believes Detmer won the Heisman. Deserved it. Was the most deserving of it that year. And yes - the schedule was weak, timing of the vote fortunate, and it was a weak class.



Detmer played who he was scheduled to play right up until voting day, beat #1 Miami in heroic fashion after establishing himself in the prior bowl loss to Penn State, and lost only to Oregon up to that point.



On voting day - Detmer was clearly the most deserving in his class.



No * in my book.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Just bear with me here---if a weak class is asterisk worthy, and Jake Heaps' Scout.com and Rivals.com rankings are given an asterisk because of the weak class he was in, does the asterisk make him a SIX-star QB????

Cougarbib2 wrote:
Mahalo nui loa



But what is missing from this post is that I do not think anyone, and certainly not I, agreed with the detractors. The point was that there were in fact a wide number of detractors. And the Deseret News article borrowed from the Washington Post documented that dissension quite clearly.



It was not that a bunch of people thought Rocket Ismail or Eric Bienemy should have won it - thus the unanimous choice - someone had to win - the detractors bemoaned the class being so weak that any of them would even be finalists.



And that article was written before Detmer then suffered 5 straight blowout losses.



That was all that The Bibster said. I would post that article link - but iPhone compatibility with this site does not seem to allow it.



Search as I indicated earlier. Find it and post it here.



There was controversy. No scandals. Just criticism of BY Who for not having played anyone and Detmer building stats in a system that would give any QB gaudy stats ala Houston in that timeframe - and a very weak class.



Repeating myself: The Bibster believes Detmer won the Heisman. Deserved it. Was the most deserving of it that year. And yes - the schedule was weak, timing of the vote fortunate, and it was a weak class.



Detmer played who he was scheduled to play right up until voting day, beat #1 Miami in heroic fashion after establishing himself in the prior bowl loss to Penn State, and lost only to Oregon up to that point.



On voting day - Detmer was clearly the most deserving in his class.



No * in my book.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No, you compared Detmer's "controversial" Heisman to Cam Newton, someone around whom swirled some serious charges of being paid a lot of money to go to Auburn.

The one thing Detmer had going for him was several previous QB's from BYU that should have been considered such as McMahon. Detmer got a lift from that. I remember commentaters saying that it was BYU's turn and were glad Detmer won. There will always be guys that don't like the results. I'm not sure the most worthy guy won it last year.

Cougarbib2 wrote:
And that article was written before Detmer then suffered 5 straight blowout losses.[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Why do the first 3 games of 1991 have anything to do with the 1990 Heisman Trophy?



Completely different team. BYU only had 2 other starters returning on offense besides Detmer. No Chris Smith. NO Andy Boyce. No Matt Bellini. Of course they will start the season slow. Playing two top 5 teams conly compounds the problem.



Detmer beat the no. 1 team in 1990 and won the Heisman, so he now has to beat the no. 1 team (Florida State) in 1991 to keep his Heisman?



For the record, UCLA did not "blowout" BYU in 1991. BYU lost 27-23 after giving up a 23-20 lead in the fourth quarter.



When BYU played a good Air Force team (4-0) in game 4, look what Detmer did (20-30, 340 yards, IIRC). AFA finished the year ranked in the top 25, IIRC.



Oh, and Detmer separated both his shoulders and dind't finish the bowl game. He didn't play defense either, so it is not like he could do much to stop TAM from pinning 65 on BYU.

Cougarbib2 wrote:
But what is missing from this post is that I do not think anyone, and certainly not I, agreed with the detractors. The point was that there were in fact a wide number of detractors. And the Deseret News article borrowed from the Washington Post documented that dissension quite clearly.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I counter this with all the national praise, including Washington Post writers, showered on Detmer after the Miami game.



Maybe this weekend I can dig up some of those quotes and post them, but no one was making excuses about Detmer then. They all gushed about how he deserved the Heisman.

snoscythe wrote:
Just bear with me here---if a weak class is asterisk worthy, and Jake Heaps' Scout.com and Rivals.com rankings are given an asterisk because of the weak class he was in, does the asterisk make him a SIX-star QB????

Seven Star - more seriously - 3 or 4. A five in a weak class would be less in a good class and even less in a great class. In Jake's case he was not consensus #1 and it was a weak class. Nick Montana has kind of been a bust too.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

SpiffCoug wrote:

Mahalo nui loa



But what is missing from this post is that I do not think anyone, and certainly not I, agreed with the detractors. The point was that there were in fact a wide number of detractors. And the Deseret News article borrowed from the Washington Post documented that dissension quite clearly.



It was not that a bunch of people thought Rocket Ismail or Eric Bienemy should have won it - thus the unanimous choice - someone had to win - the detractors bemoaned the class being so weak that any of them would even be finalists.



And that article was written before Detmer then suffered 5 straight blowout losses.



That was all that The Bibster said. I would post that article link - but iPhone compatibility with this site does not seem to allow it.



Search as I indicated earlier. Find it and post it here.



There was controversy. No scandals. Just criticism of BY Who for not having played anyone and Detmer building stats in a system that would give any QB gaudy stats ala Houston in that timeframe - and a very weak class.



Repeating myself: The Bibster believes Detmer won the Heisman. Deserved it. Was the most deserving of it that year. And yes - the schedule was weak, timing of the vote fortunate, and it was a weak class.



Detmer played who he was scheduled to play right up until voting day, beat #1 Miami in heroic fashion after establishing himself in the prior bowl loss to Penn State, and lost only to Oregon up to that point.



On voting day - Detmer was clearly the most deserving in his class.



No * in my book.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No, you compared Detmer's "controversial" Heisman to Cam Newton, someone around whom swirled some serious charges of being paid a lot of money to go to Auburn.

That is not true. Go back and look. I replied to the ridiculous assertion made that since there is no * on the official Heisman list then there was no controversy. I simply pointed out that that is as ridiculous as saying that since there is no * on that list by Cam Newton's name that by your and Hawks logic, there must not have been controversy about his Heisman either.



That is what I posted about Cam Newton. We all know there was controversy there and yet no * on the Official List - so the assertion that there needs to literally be an * on that list for me to claim there was controversy fails the test of logic.



To say I compared Detmer fails the test of integrity. Surprising. I have always felt you had integrity.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No commentator, no sports writer, no one involved in sports has ever put a star by Ty Detmer's name when it comes to the Heisman. I've searched for articles and found a washington post article that Bib is apparently referencing yet there is no mention in it anywhere that Detmer was less deserving of the Heisman that that of any other winner.



This "controversy" only continues because Bib refuses to back down from his statement that historians put a star by Detmer's name.

But there was NO controversy surrounding Detmer's Heisman. There may have been some vocal media members who didn't feel Detmer earned or deserved the Heisman. You likened some sour grapes to legitimate controversy.

Y12 wrote:

But what is missing from this post is that I do not think anyone, and certainly not I, agreed with the detractors. The point was that there were in fact a wide number of detractors. And the Deseret News article borrowed from the Washington Post documented that dissension quite clearly.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I counter this with all the national praise, including Washington Post writers, showered on Detmer after the Miami game.



Maybe this weekend I can dig up some of those quotes and post them, but no one was making excuses about Detmer then. They all gushed about how he deserved the Heisman.

Being the anylitical sports journalist you try to be - re objectivity - you might make this mental note - in any controversy, there are lots of people taking each point of view. In the controversy of all controversies - it would ve evenly split.



But thank you for pointing out - it was indeed a controversy - with people gushing in support and others sniping and backbiting about it.



And as a reminder - I was and am on the side that felt the best man won.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And the point is, EVERY year there is controversy over the Heisman. Some there is a lot of controversy. Some there is very little and the man wins every single region (Detmer). But there is almost never a year in which there is no controversy on the winner.

Y12 wrote:

And that article was written before Detmer then suffered 5 straight blowout losses.[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Why do the first 3 games of 1991 have anything to do with the 1990 Heisman Trophy?



Completely different team. BYU only had 2 other starters returning on offense besides Detmer. No Chris Smith. NO Andy Boyce. No Matt Bellini. Of course they will start the season slow. Playing two top 5 teams conly compounds the problem.



Detmer beat the no. 1 team in 1990 and won the Heisman, so he now has to beat the no. 1 team (Florida State) in 1991 to keep his Heisman?



For the record, UCLA did not "blowout" BYU in 1991. BYU lost 27-23 after giving up a 23-20 lead in the fourth quarter.



When BYU played a good Air Force team (4-0) in game 4, look what Detmer did (20-30, 340 yards, IIRC). AFA finished the year ranked in the top 25, IIRC.



Oh, and Detmer separated both his shoulders and dind't finish the bowl game. He didn't play defense either, so it is not like he could do much to stop TAM from pinning 65 on BYU.

You are correct. So when was that UCLA blowout that I sat through in the Rose Bowl. I recall BYU getting a couple of scores in garbage time. It would have been 1992 if I recall correctly.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I really don't want to take the time to look, so I'll just ask, who's the idiot here who's even questioning Detmer's Heisman? I can see Yewt fans doing that because they'll never have one of their own Detmers. Just like they question the 1984 championship because they'll never have one of their own. But why is that even a topic of discussion here?

hawkwing wrote:
No commentator, no sports writer, no one involved in sports has ever put a star by Ty Detmer's name when it comes to the Heisman. I've searched for articles and found a washington post article that Bib is apparently referencing yet there is no mention in it anywhere that Detmer was less deserving of the Heisman that that of any other winner.



This "controversy" only continues because Bib refuses to back down from his statement that historians put a star by Detmer's name.

So here we go again. Bib outlined the controversy and even in this very thread reiterated that people did not think another player was more deserving, at the time of the award, but that they thought neither he nor Ismail would even be finalists in a decent class.



You acknowledge reading it, keep dodging the specific issue of the controversy, continue to have limited iPhone support, and are apparently not interested in accuracy and fairness enough to post the link for me.



Seems you might be afraid readers may form an informed opinion rather than a manipulated one.



But it is your site, your monopoly, your cartel, your group think.



I stand corrected - there was not widely held opinion - ie controversy - that BYU and Detmer's WAC schedule tainted his accomplishments, or a perception that the BYU system and level of competition would give any QB gaudy stats, and no wide perception that Detmer benefitted from fortunate timing by being in a weak class and having the vote tallied, according to normal Heisman scheduling, before BYU list to Hawaii badly and unexpectedly on Heusman Day. And the other poster that said some people were saying Detmer benefitted by following Young, MAC, and others passed by and that voters felt they owed BYU something - he is nuts. Nobody thought that.



Because you said so. It must be so.



The Bibster acknowledges that he imagine the controversy - because there clearly was none - before or after Heisman Day.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Detmer would have been in the conversation any year. He was the first QB to throw for 5,000 yards ever in a season. He had some phenomenal games. Detmer had gaudy stats, But he had gaudy stats before everyone had gaudy stats.



The only person with gaudy stats was David Klingler, but his schedule made Detmer's look better. People who may have thought Detmer feasted on the little sisters of the poor until they saw Klingler dropping 11TDs on a D1AA team.



Detmer was a great candidate the year he won it. He wasn't as good a candidate the following year when Desmond Howard won it even though his senior season was better than his junior season - statistically speaking.

Apparently bib has failed to read the multiple posts where I've said that I have searched for the articles that say Ty Detmer's Heisman has an asterisk by it. That was a failure, no source I've seen has that. Next I tried to find this Washington Post article that talks about the controversy and weak field, again I could find no such article. I did find a Washington post article that was reprinted in the Deseret News but it had no mention of pundits poo-pooing the BYU schedule or Ty Detmer's system. I'm guessing that bib has just failed to see that I've already posted this info.