2005 Heisman
 

And the finalists are...

Reggie Bush, USC
Matt Leinart, USC
Vince Young, Texas

Re: 2005 Heisman
 

thats it? Anyone else?

Young can cry and say downplay Reggie all he wants. We all know Reggie changes the game.

Fight on and hook those cows.

(Yeah, its on now! let the smack talk begin...chumps)

As badly as I would love for Vince to win it, I think Reggie is just scary good. I hadn't gotten to watch USC much, but he impressed me in the last game.

Oh its defintely Reggie's.

I think its cool though that ALL the Heisman finalists will be playing in the same game come Rose Bowl time.

Oh, I agree! This may be the one and only time the BCS got it right.

I didn't even think about that - that is cool that they're all playing.

I'm guessing Reggie will win, but I'll be interested to see the final vote totals.

And the Heisman winner's team has historically (sure as hell not last year) not fared well.

Historically they haven't, but they won the title last year, and the year before had a share of the title (Carson Palmer at USC two years ago, and Leinert last year).

Carson Palmer didn't win the NC -- LSU did.

<--- see where I'm from? Do not try and convince me otherwise.

Haha, ok - but didn't USC get a share of the title that year? Didn't they finish tops in one of the polls? I'm not a huge college football fan, so I could definitely be wrong.

Yes. We won the AP Nat'l Championship that year. As we were #1 an AP and BCS going into the selection and were passed over for BCS title game.

We won our Rose Bowl and remained on top of the AP and got that National Title.

The BCS is in no way perfect, so let's not pretend it is.

There is an asterick next to LSU's BCS and USC's AP title from that year and it says "shared championship". Which is what the BCS was created to prevent and failed to do so that year. The BCS is supposed to have #1 and #2 team play, which would have been USC and LSU. Instead #2 and #3 played.

The AP component of the BCS was only one of the items used in the calculation. Oklahoma and LSU were #1 and #2 respectively. USC was #3.

If you watched the Sugar Bowl, though Oklahoma limped in, it was a good game.

USC had the AP National Championship, but the only real one is the BCS.

Considering where we're both from, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other though. I'm satisfied with agreeing to disagree. I just wanted to make my objections known;)

USC was #3 in the final standings. They were #1 going into the selection of bowls.

Oh we can agree to disagree. BUT, lol

The BCS was designed to eliminate split championships, and that year, they failed.

? The BCS only declared one champion.

;)

lol As did the AP. ;)

I was just reading a texas fan blog and OH MY. lol that was amusing.

last year's national championship should have an asterik by it as well...Auburn deserved at shot at SoCal...they were better than OU

KTSnake you are a Choklahoma fan. Are you serious?

Look what LSU has done since their *BCS title.

Look what USC has done since their AP title.


After Choklahoma gagged in the Big 12 conference game, USC finished the season #1 in the coaches poll and #1 in the AP. Sigh, but no the BCS. Even though everyone wanted to see USC beat the hell out of LSU (believe me, USC would have bitch slapped the Tigers worse than they did against the Sooners), the stupid computers put LSu and Oklahoma.

obviously you are going to say that game was closer than the ass beating SC put on Oklahoma.

You can say LSu has lost alot of talent, but SC has lost even more talent. Mike Williams, Shaun Cody, Cry baby Manual Wright, Kenechi Udezi, Lofa Tatupu, Will Poole, Marcel Almond, their entire offensive line, Keary colbert, Groots.

So SC loses their entire defense, their offensive line, and both starting recievers and yet they still dominate.

Nick Saban coaches last year and loses 4 games including to freakin iowa. Carrol coaches and hasn't lost since 2003 in a bullshit game.

FIGHT ON SC


* Oh yeah. and LSU is too pussy to play USC. bunch of bitches

If you are going to say Auburn, why not Utah too? Everyone from the south bitches and cries about Auburn. Auburn got their ass handed to them twice and didn't even scorfe against SC in their own home stadium.

look at who plays in the tougher conference...I highly doubt that SoCal would be on this winning streak if they played in the SEC

Um I am as off track as anyone in this thread but just want to point out

this is a HEISMAN thread.


There are a lot of USC haters out there Bobby. That's nothing new. They just hate us cause they ain't us. ;)

How will we ever know? They shouldn't have scheduled The Citadel and other such weak games. OU's SOS was respectable in comparison. Therefore, they got in.

And then choked.

bush

Oklahoma didn't get an ass beating in '03. 21-14 was the score, and OU had a legitimate shot to tie for OT at the end.

The computers were the system everyone agreed to. SC fans should stop crying -- they played a weak schedule and got their comeupins for it. Same happened to Auburn.

Amycat, I know it's a Heisman thread, but seriously, there is no discussion to be had. It goes to Bush -- end of story.

Actually that year USC's schedule was considered to be amongst the strongest in the nation. (ETA that may have been the year before actually)

WEAK is schools who schedule 1-AA. USC will take all comers, its just no one wants to play us. lol

Am I just crazy or are there usually 5 finalist? The only time I have ever watched the Heisman presentation was when a friend of mines brother was a finalist and finished 2nd (and no I am not kidding or full of $h!t)...it was the year Ron Dayne won...it seems like there was him, Joe Hamilton, Drew Breese, and I know there was at least one more guy...but I think there were two.

I read there have been 4 or 5 finalists every year since 1999. Don't know about before that.

I am surprised Brady Quinn didn't make the list.

I was also thinking that there were usually 5 finalists. Was the voting gap so wide between the top 3 and the rest that they just went with 3? I dunno.....:confused:

that's what I read, that the top 3 were so overwhelmingly ahead of the rest that it did not make sense to invite anyone other than them. But it STILL surprises me Brady Quinn was left out. lol

Heard on the radio this morning in Austin:

"And this Saturday, Vince Young will be in New York to.... Not accept the Heisman- He will watch Reggie Bush win it....."

Hilarious mainly because the dj is in Austin and DEATH to anyone here who says anything against ut football. LOL. :p

Everything I have seen and heard of Vince shows him to be a really decent guy.... Apparently he's pretty nice and all that stuff. I don't want to wish him bad luck.... But damnit, I'm drowning here in a sea of burnt orange, and I don't think they need anything else to brag about. ;)

The problem folks is not with the BCS. The problem is with the human polls which rely on two factors in determining who the best teams are: "what have you done for me lately?" and "where did you start out the season?".

The teams that play for the National Championship season should have had the best season overall. Losing late in the season has an inordinate impact on the final standings compared to losing early. Had OU gotten slapped by K-state like they did in week 6 instead of week 14, no one would have batted an eye when they got in b/c they were so dominant the rest of that year. Yes there would have been some controversy, but everyone by the end would have been pretty sure that OU, even with the loss was better than USC. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts. The way that OU played that year was similar to the way in which USC and UT have played this year, only more dominant. There was very frank and deserved discussion about that OU team being the greatest team ever (unlike the talk of USC this year which is not deserved...there I said it).

The other issue like I said is "where did you start out the season." Both USC and Auburn in their respective "snub" years were overachievers who didn't start out the season ranked in the top 10. If there is no preseason ranking then no one is set in stone at the beginning and we can begin to see who are the best teams without being concerned about their rankings for the first month of the season.


And Reggie Bush will win the Heisman b/c he really is the best player in the country. Which means that my friend who was a High School Heisman winner in 2001, and has last year's SI cover of Reggie flipping into the endzone against UCLA signed by both Leinart and Bush, has the ultimat Heisman souvenier...even though he hates football and doesn't even really know much about it. Nevermind that he gets free trips each and every year to the Heisman ceremony as it is...

And surprise surprise.....

Reggie Bush wins.