Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
Can anyone explain how Derrick Henry won the Heisman over that white kid from Stanford who had like 1k more total yards from scrimmage than anyone else in the country?
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
It's a west coast bias... Not enough voters see McCaffery play since their games are usually starting at 10 pm ET.
 
Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
Read an article that mentioned Henry possibly got the nod because he's a jr and he'll be in the NFL next year, whereas the McCaffery and Watson are both sophmores and will get a chance to win it next year.

WTF?
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,006
Reaction score
2,091
It's a west coast bias... Not enough voters see McCaffery play since their games are usually starting at 10 pm ET.

I seriously doubt that's an impediment in the age of YouTube, on-demand video and 24-hour sports stations. You don't have to watch a guy "live" to know that he's elite. If NFL scouts can know everything about an obscure player in Oregon, then Heisman voters can know everything about McCaffery--esp since he plays at a prominent school. And lord knows Kershaw hasn't missed out on Cy Youngs just because he's a West Coaster.
 

cmd34

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,877
Reaction score
119
The west coast thing is real. I've seen voters (AP as well as Heisman) admit they didn't watch a player or games because they are on too late.Personally, I think you shouldn't be able to vote anymore if you admit you are not watching everyone but apparently it's acceptable in college football. I've even seen a voter admit in an interview that he doesn't believe they play real football west of Texas. But please, count his vote every year.

Henry did break the SEC rushing record and Alabama is in the playoffs, plus he didn't win by a huge margin. I have zero problem with him getting it even though I was rooting for McCaffrey.
 
Last edited:

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
But seriously, yeah, these voters are mostly old guys and they probably 1) are watching live and 2) aren't as in to watching their fourth game in a row at midnight. Plus the majority of voters are east of the Mississippi, and most people naturally have some regional favoritism going on. Add in the SEC factor pus Alabama's "name brand" and McCaffrey didn't have much chance.
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,006
Reaction score
2,091
I'll buy the bias theory before the "haven't seen the guy play live" theory. In this day and age, you can get all the game/player highlights with one click, so time zones are no longer an excuse.
 
Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
I guess when Palmer and Bush and other USC'ers won it it was because Southern California is on the east coast.
 

jnday

UDFA
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
It is a simple case of racial profiling and that is wrong. General thoughts are that a white boy can not run with a football. Of course that is usually true, but I still say that it was wrong.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
I'll buy the bias theory before the "haven't seen the guy play live" theory. In this day and age, you can get all the game/player highlights with one click, so time zones are no longer an excuse.
Even if they watched all of his highlights, that gives them no idea of that player's real effect on the game... And they don't have a frame of reference to gauge how good is the competition he's playing.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
I guess when Palmer and Bush and other USC'ers won it it was because Southern California is on the east coast.

Those guys were head and shoulders better than the competition. I don't think McCaffery was way better than Henry. But when it's close, the further east you go, the better your odds are.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Meh. The all purpose ability is great don't get me wrong. But as a runner, Henry was better IMO. More yards, higher YPC, 15 more TDs. McCaffery only had 4 TDs as a receiver.
 
Top Bottom