Just like it's been pointed out numerous times, of course Bush was not discussed in that way because most VY supporters would agree that Bush far and away a better prospect and fit for this team to use the #1 pick on at that time. Before January 4th, absolutely no one believed that VY was coming out, but obviously that changed when VY decided he was coming out. There was no argument between Bush/Leinart, Bush/Hawk, etc for the #1 pick. However there was, and still are, people who argue for trading down.
which media members admitted they would have changed their vote? the implication here is that young would have won going away - that would almost require a 100% reversal of nearly every vote, since bush won so overwhelmingly, so please corroborate that. my guess is that a few may have expressed getting it wrong, but that the number was nowhere near close enough to swing the vote. but the burden of proof is on those making the claim, not me. my proof is that the trophy is in southern california, not austin. as for the rose bowl not being a part of the season, the heisman trophy is 70-something years old... and it's NEVER incorporated bowl games into the voting criteria. few awards, if any, in any sport on any level incorporate postseason accomplishments. i don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp or that it's even a dicussion point. it's like saying wuerffel didn;t deserve the heisman based on his NFL career. i don't, but questioning a player's skills is part of the process. bush has question marks - can he be an every down back? was he even the best back on his team? etc. what does VY, though, have to do with bush's season? it's like concluding bush will be a bust because ki-jana carter was a bust. but again, that's in relation to who the texans should draft. i'm not discussing that. i'm discussing the "let's go back, because of one game, and recast the entire 2005 ncaa season and make a VY coronation and in doing so, we'll draw new conclusions about how overrated bush is." neither was overrated, both are worthy of being the texans' pick.
no, they weren't. people were openly cheering for the texans to lose so they could draft reggie bush. every pick is going to have ??'s. what's happening afetr texas won the title, their fans got into a snit because they felt they were owed more than being crowned football's best, a charge led by their QB who, despite winning the title, continued to cry about the heisman voting, even going so far as to erect the heisman pose in his post-game celebration. and that led to a revisionist recasting of the season. this isn't about who the texans should draft; it's about fans being upset young was "robbed." if young hadn't declared, this debate would still be raging.
Actually, from what I remember, that pose was all he did, he didn't say anything else about it. I don't think it's about Vince being robbed, some just really want Vince Young. Skip Bayless for one. He bashed Vince and UT all year. He grew up in Oklahoma and had an article about him being an OU homer. He also said Va Tech was better than Texas, Marcus Vick was better than Vince, etc. I think Kirk Bohls said it as well. For the record, if you don't include the Rose Bowl, I think Reggie deserved the award as much as anyone, probably more. Come on Ric. You haven't read some posters questioning Vince's intelligence, ethics, arm strength, etc? They still question his game as if he only ran for 200 yards against USC. He also threw for 267 as well.
on this message board they were ric. i remember finally being convinced that reggie might be the way to go....and posting my concerns about not drafting down and taking Ferguson.
MANY - both in print and in broadcast. Here's a few in print I dug up: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/13559754.htm Here's another one(I got it off Lexis-Nexis) Those are just the two I could find where I knew for a fact the guys are Heisman voters - I'm sure there are many more from broadcast transcripts, etc, or if I had a list of Heisman voters Now, find me ONE who said "in spite of the Rose Bowl,, if the voting was done now, I'd still vote for Reggie Bush." Good luck. You claim to be a disinterested party and are just balancing out all the Longhorn homerism - but it seems like you're shading it way too far in the other direction and have an agenda against Young and/or UT like some other poster do (like many have one in the opposite direction) I watched TV and read newspapers back then - i think you did too. To believe that "I'd change my vote" was not a common refrain back in early January, again to pretend like this didn't happen is "revisionism", of the type you claim you are combatting.
Sam, the funny thing about the article from Ohio is that Texas was on tv alot, he just didn't watch apparently.
Texas had at least 4 or five natl. games, right? I think more. And, I hope he saw the game in Columbus. With regards to the writers, I'm sure some would say "I didn't make a mistake, I based it on the reg. season, like I should have." But, I think it's awful big for some of them to even say "ok, I would change my mind if I could." Some will still be too stubborn though. Obviously, I think the voting would be alot closer, but not sure VY would win. Skip may say he would vote for Vince, but who knows if he actually would.
i'm not the one making unsubstiatiated claims. the burden of proof is on the many who have said, for instance: btw, congrats on finding three voters who changed their minds. only 781 to go before you can officially conclude young's rose bowl performance would have changed enough votes to merit him the heisman. and i have no agenda with young. i've been a bush backer for a long time; went toe-to-toe with RM95, MM and major back in november, and even THEY turned the corner on him until jan. 4. BUT, i can support bush w/o having to bash VY. that's why i asked RM95, and will ask you - if i seem to have an agenda against young, why don't you tell me what my opinion of young is.
LOL, stop being so dramatic about it. YOU are the one who's whining about the desecration of the sacred Heisman voting procedures, handed down by the ghost of John Heisman, who appeared in the DAC in the form of a burning urinal cake, before levitating out over West Street and into the Hudson - by considering the Rose Bowl. I guess he must have also handed down the procedural rules as to who has the burden of proof when trying matters of post-heisman fact. Why don't you send me a copy of the Rules of Heisman Voting Hypothetical Recount Trial Procedure so that I can conduct my inquiry within your bounds? I guess you won't stop until I can subpoena and depose all 900 whatever Heisman voters? Well, that I can honestly say I will not do. Congratulations Ric - you win, under the OFFICIAL Rules of Heisman Voting Hypothetical Recount Trial Procedure as dictated to me by you, you win. But hey, give me a list of Heisman voters and I'll run some more searches. I know that it probably won't meet the rigorous standards of the OFFICIAL Rules of Heisman Voting Hypothetical Recount Trial Procedure as dictated to me by you, it not being sworn before a notary public, but fun nonetheless. I still dare you to find a single, solitary voice who said - "yeah, if I voted after the Rose Bowl, I'd still vote for Bush" -- even though it is outside the OFFICIAL Rules of Heisman Voting Hypothetical Recount Trial Procedure as dictated to me by you. I doubt that you can. If you feel so strongly about the Texans taking Bush, which you apparently do - you by necessity feel that they should not take Young. Your support doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Your opinion of Young is that he's inferior to Bush, at least to the extent taht it matters for Houston - that's your opinion. It's not hard to figure out.
If the texans do take VY, the RB supporters will not be saying "I hate this team", "i'm no longer a texans fan", "I don't have the love for them like I did the oilers". The VY supporters are already doing this in the Carr thread. True colors are starting to shine thru.
DISCLAIMER: I haven't read most of this thread nor even the comment to which this post replies. I just want to point out that this logic is not necessarily complete or accurate. It could certainly be argued that while Young may be a superior playmaker/athlete to Bush, Bush fits the offensive scheme or need of the Texans better. I'm not saying that is my opinion (I still don't know what I would do in their position); I'm just pointing this out. One does not have to decry Young to advocate selecting Bush. IOW, "better fit" and "better athlete" can be mutually exclusive.
Some of them are doing that. Not all of them. I've never claimed that you had an agenda against Young. I simply claimed it was absurd to criticize someone for advocating VY and pointing out what they believe are Bush's weaknesses if that's their opinion. If it's your opinion that they're both going to be great and that you feel that Bush is the better fit for the Texans, that's your opinion as well. Just because you don't feel the need to point out Young's weaknesses doesn't mean that VY supporters can't have what they feel are legitimate concerns about Bush and point those out. Basically, your annoyed by someone having a different opinion than you so you just call them "disingenuous". BTW, you still can't get my feelings down right. Just to recap, I was originally heavily in favor of trading down, then began to get excited about Bush, and now that VY has declared, I'm in the middle. I don't care what they do because I feel they're in a no-lose situation (although, trading down scares me a bit because of Casserly).
I have never been a big Texans supporter, but drafting Vince would bring me back into the fold. It is hard to get into the Texans, I was a MASSIVE Oilers fan, and still would be....but I don't live in Houston anymore, but I am still die hard Rockets and Stros.....just can't quite get into the Texans........ Vince would hook me......Reggie....well, I will hope they do well cause they are from my home town, but I will still not care all that much. However, if Vince goes to the Titans, I will probably pick up a Titans allegiance. DD
That's the thing though. None of the Bush supporters are as open minded as you. There's alot of "Vince can't throw, Vince is dumb, he played with alot more talent, big 12 defenses suck, then, pac ten defenses suck, Reggie played against better defenses, he won't be able to run away from nfl defenses, etc." I'm obviously pro-Vince, but I will readily acknowledge that Reggie is a huge talent. In fact, who knows if USC loses if they give him the ball more. But, I think Vince is the better pick for the Texans and I think Vince is a more unique talent. I mean, he just passed for 267 in a natl. title game, and that's not even the big deal. This also didn't seem like a fluke performance. He's had games like these in the past.
Also you are arguing the Rose Bowl is only one game, but then go on to imply it is reasonable for a neck to neck race to turn into a landslide just because VY was off his game against one of his team's weaker opponents and where his team still scored 40 and won the game. People here use the argument Bush had a greater impact on the Rose Bowl than it seemed because the defense had to key on him, well that is 3x the factor with VY even on his "bad games" every play goes threw him in some form and more defenders (and entire schemes) have to be adjusted to account for his unique abilities. I am not going to say Bush winning was a fluke or unearned based on many of the factors that play a part in Heisman voting. Bush had a great season sure, enough to make a good case for him. But he won the Heisman by the margin he did based on some other traditional award criteria--who was on the #1 team, whose team got more media play, who had the most highlight plays reaching media outlets, and who finished the last couple of games more dazzling. These factors or combinations of such are why guys like Desmond Howard, Charles Woodson, Tim Brown, Gino Torretta and Jason White won Heismans over more dominant and better individual college players. Reggie Bush and his landslide victory is not really an anomolie and is one of many examples of why who is the best college football player is one of the lesser parts of determining who wins Heismans. Regardless of the Heisman voting, there was no question at the end of the college football season who was by far the best player. Any remotely objective person has to say Vince Young was the better college football player than Reggie Bush when they look at the full season of all games in total. Doesn't mean Bush wasn't a great player in his own right, and he is a great pro prospect (though with some questions I think way too easily shoved under the rug by many proponents of his). But again, no question a great prospect who almost surely is worth a top 3 pick, very unqiue company for a RB, and even more rare for a light RB. But as to who was the more special and dominant college player, that was definitively answered at the Rose Bowl for those who didn't know both players whole bodies of work or who didn't know all the ways they as individuals would dominate games.
Wasn't Jay Williams a no brainer #1 overall pick for the entire 2002 season? But here comes Yao Ming and nobody even remembered who Jay Williams was. I'm not saying the same thing will happen to Reggie, but things change. Yes, we all remember the "Bush Bowl," but we also all remember the Rose Bowl as well. Reggie was the guaranteed #1 pick at one point, but then Houston and the entire nation got to see what the hometown kid can do and on the biggest stage on top of that. There were questions about Bush's size/durability/style way before VY came along, many just chose to listen to it because he was most likely going to be the pick.
it's not IN consideration because the award is handed out in early december. this can't be more clear. it's like saying they should have revoted for the nl mvp after beltran's playoff performance in '04. it's simply not a viable discussion because it's not even remotely relevant. if you're going to make ridiculous claims, the budern is on you, not me, to substitiate it. seriously?... i don't have to, nor are voters required to write such declarations. they voted and overwhemingly favored bush. period. if you're going to claim they ALL thought they made a mistake - prove it. otherwise, let it go and move on. and yet, it in no way reveals my actual opinion of young and his talent. if i think munich is the best movie of the year (and i do, btw), does that mean every other movie is no good? and if that was the tenor of these discussions, i'd be cool with it. they're not. the purpose seems to be to rewrite history - that's what i find disingenious. young and bush BOTH have concerns. and heaps and heaps of talent. and they both had REMARKABLE seasons. some of the opponents were weak; other weren't. they played big against good teams and were sparks in those big wins. no. claiming VY would have won the heisman in a landslide if only they had broken 70 years of protocol and included this, and not included that and done such and such is not stating an opinion that can even be remotely substantiated. wondering if bush can run between the tackles...? OK. but that doesn't recast his season as less than stellar, does it? evaluating prospects is one thing. but that's not what they're doing here. agreed. i'm in the BPA available at #1 camp, and have been all along. casserly does NOT need extra picks. before VY declared, that player was bush. now VY is neck-and-neck. my choice of bush comes down to believing the team needs what he offers more and that carr can be a good QB. it has nothing to do with any anti-VY sentiments. and yet, i still think VY is a stud. imagine that... and yet, sam and others immediately cast me as "anti-young" and get all defensive - let me post some picture with "owned" emblazoned across it and.... yawn.
