Today, CFR calls the following the "Quote of the Day", citing Heisman Pundit:
"Or course politics determines the outcome [of the Heisman Trophy vote]. But that is what college football is all about. Hate the Heisman, hate college football."
Here's a list of things I think college football is "all about" that rank above "politics":
scoring more than the other team
running
throwing the ball
playing defense
catching the ball
scoring touchdowns
allowing fewer touchdowns than your team scores
blocking
tackling
coaching
strength
speed
power
playcalling
strategy
clock management
matchups
athleticism
quickness
agility
avoiding penalties
avoiding turnovers
causing turnovers
kicking field goals and extra points
special teams coverage
punting
kickoff and punt returns
recruiting talented players
referees making important calls
...and if you're not interested in the whole "on-field" aspect of the sport, there are these things that college football is "all about":
supporting your school
cheerleaders
tailgating
fight songs
marching bands
color guard
historic stadia
fall weather
grilling out
yelling your ass off
classic radio play-by-play announcers
legendary coaches
uniform colors
pageantry, like dotting the i or opening up the T.
singing the Alma Mater
arm motions, like the FSU's chop or Florida's chomp
flags on car windows and magnets on the side
watercooler bragging to the guy who went to a rival school
chants specific to each school
heartbreak
euphoria
College Football would still be "all about" any of these things if politics had nothing to do with the sport.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
'Bout It, 'Bout It
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The Heisman detracts from the game. Not the fault of the trustees of the award, but it serves to further the ongoing ME ME ME value that is the ruin of any team and sport.
Anyway, something I'd love for you to write about is the nature of the Heisman. What should the criteria be? It most decidedly should not be "the best player on the best team." Hello Troy's Myth.
But, I am absolutely convicted that humanity advanced, aka D. McFadden, should not win it. To me, the award should go to one who inspires, who overcomes tremendous adversity and wills his team to wins. DMc didn't even see the field for the two most crucial drives in Arkansas' season (Q4, Alabama).
To be VERY clear....I am not calling him soft, or a quitter, or anything derogatory. But I am calling in to question his suitability to win a transcendent award.
What say you? What truly makes for a Heisman winner?
Honestly, I don't think all that much about the Heisman. It's a team sport, and no individual could stand out significantly if not for the efforts of several other individuals on the team. So in a way, I think of the Heisman as just one of a number of nice traditions in college football, but nothing above and beyond anything else.
What an absurd comment (HP/CFR. Hey, there's a shock).
Post a Comment