Category Archives: College football

Heisman Trust has right to enforce non-disclosure or else mandate on voters

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana is on the mandate from the Heisman Trust that voters don’t reveal their choices prior to Saturday’s announcement. While I’m all for transparency, voting for the Heisman isn’t a right. It is a privilege.

Here’s some excerpts:

******

Journalists really don’t like to be told what to do. Tell us to go left, and we’ll go right.

In retrospect, the Heisman Trust should have sent a letter to voters demanding that they reveal their choices prior to the award announcement Saturday.

I could see the reaction. “No way. Nobody’s making me write a column disclosing my vote.”

Who knows? It might have worked.

Instead, the Heisman Trust took the opposite approach. It sent out letters to voters who revealed their selections last year in advance of the announcement. Last spring, Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com wrote (insert link: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/22030795/giving-up-my-heisman-vote-before-getting-stiffarmed) about what showed up in his mailbox:

“Your letter arrived with the names “Johnny Manziel,” “Manti Teo” and “Collin Klein” highlighted from my column with a yellow marker like I had cheated in class.

“We had until April 8 to atone for our sins — aka promise “in writing” we would hide our ballots from public consumption after the voting deadline (early December). Even then, you stated regional and state representatives “will take your explanation into consideration when determining the 2013 electorate.”

In other words, vote and then shut up. Or lose your vote forever.

******

I’m all for transparency as a journalist, and I should know better than to disagree with Dodd, a long-time friend and one of the best in the business. But you know what? I think the Heisman Trust is justified in making this request.

Now we can write forever on the flaws in the voting set-up and the ridiculous number of voters (more than 900), many of whom have little idea what’s happening in college football. But that’s a story, or book, for another day.

However, voting for the Heisman Trophy isn’t a right; it is a privilege. This isn’t marking a ballot for president of the United States. This is selecting the top college football player of the year. Big difference.

It’s the Heisman’s proverbial ball here. If you don’t want to play by the rules, then don’t vote.

Here’s a simple solution: Write about your vote after the winner is announced. In fact, you could have the column ready to go immediately after the envelope is opened. Just click a button.

(Note: Since writing the column, I wrote today the challenge too stay mum is harder for sports talk radio host and TV analysts who have a vote.)

Chisholm argues that more transparency is required in the voting process. I agree. Fans should know who voted for who.

Now would it hurt to wait until Saturday night? Both Dodd and Chisholm contend that all the pre-announcement disclosures of votes helps build the audience for the Heisman announcement. Chisholm writes:

“After all, what I do is part of the hype machine.  In 2009, the closest Heisman race ever (Ingram/Gerhart/McCoy/Suh/Tebow) led to the biggest ratings ever.  The Heisman Trust even bragged about it in a press release.  There’s just one problem:  If it were up to the Heisman folks, no one would have had ANY idea that it was going to be a close race.  It was MY site that told the world that it would be close.  I led SportsCenter on Friday night that year.  3.78 million people watched the show — and I had 1.3 million page views during the two weeks prior to the show.  I helped create that huge level of hype for them.”

It’s a valid argument. Perhaps the Heisman Trust will discover the pre-announcement polls and vote disclosures are beneficial. But that’s a decision it has to make.

For now, the Heisman Trust wants voters to keep their ballots to themselves prior to the announcement. Like it or not, it’s their trophy.

 

Oops: Paul Finebaum realizes he wasn’t supposed to reveal Heisman vote in interview with Olbermann

Posted on by

After Paul Finebaum said he selected Jameis Winston, he realized he violated the Heisman Trust’s edict for voters not to disclose their selections.

“By the way, I just did something that will excommunicate me,” he said.

The mandate, though, does present a problem for sports talk radio hosts and TV analysts, of which Finebaum is both. How are they not supposed to talk about their choices in the week leading up to the announcement, especially when they are on the air for several hours per day?

For instance, I heard Chris Russo, who also is a Heisman voter, reveal his ballot the other day on Mad Dog Radio. He is voting for Winston.

Will be interesting to see what kind of response Finebaum and Russo receive from the Heisman folks.

 

Long-time Heisman tracker: New rule mandating voters don’t reveal ballots is wrong

Posted on by

The Heisman Trophy winner will be revealed Saturday. Strike the pose, Jameis Winston.

There doesn’t seem to be much suspense this year, but that hasn’t always been the case. Take last year, for instance, when Johnny Manziel beat Manti Te’o. As I remember, it wasn’t a sure thing going into that Saturday night.

Usually, the run-up to the Heisman features the voters disclosing their choices in columns or on air. Polls are taken, predicting the winner.

This year, though, is different.

The Heisman Trust is mandating that voters don’t reveal their selections until after Saturday night’s show on ESPN. The reason is obvious: It wants to keep the suspense for viewers until the winner is announced.

Several writers said they couldn’t go along with the edict. Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com wrote a strong column on why he won’t be voting this year.

I have my own views on the subject, which I will disclose later. However, I reached out to Kari Chisholm. Since 2002, he has been tracking the Heisman vote and projecting the winner at StiffArmTrophy.com.

Chisholm’s task is more difficult this year because of the Heisman mandate. Still, he is getting voters to disclose their choices.

I asked Chisholm to weigh in on the situation with his perspective.

********

I come at this from a deep sense of respect for the Heisman, and appreciation for the tough job that each of the voters have.  I fell in love with football as a kid when Marcus Allen wowed the world – first as USC’s Heisman winner, and then moving into the pros as Rookie of the Year and then Super Bowl MVP.

I’ve been fascinated by the Heisman ever since.  I think it’s fair to say that it’s the most prestigious award in all of sport, and one of the most prestigious in the world.  Along with the Nobel, it’s just about the only award that typically gets mentioned in the very first sentence of an obituary.  (Note: “award” means something that is voted on by outside observers, not won on the field of competition, like an Olympic gold medal or Super Bowl trophy.)

Anyway, this all started in 2002, when Carson Palmer was making a late run at the Heisman.  Back then, Google was still new — and I realized that I could Google my way to a significant sample of the votes to predict the winner.  I did it, and then wondered if I could do it again.  And I did.  Over and over.

As a USC guy, I haven’t had a dog in the fight now for quite a few years. And yet, I keep at it – because I love the Heisman Trophy.

I think the Heisman Trust is making a terrible mistake insisting that ballots remain secret.  Just a quick search now will reveal that precious few voters are writing columns about how they voted.  In years past, there have been dozens — in papers large and small — all building the hype for the big announcement.  It can’t be good for the Heisman to silence their biggest fans, their voters.

This year, I am seeing fewer voters disclose their votes in public — and among those who share their votes with me, almost all are asking me to keep it anonymous.  A number of voters are mad about it — Dennis Dodd at CBS resigned his vote; Ryan Brown at WJOX will resign after this year.  I’ve heard that the voters at the Oklahoman newspaper all dropped their votes in protest this year.  The 28-year run of the Scripps-Howard Heisman poll is now over, unceremoniously with a final edition in early November.

Originally, it was the intellectual challenge of projecting the winner.  But over the last decade, I’ve become strongly interested in transparency in college football.  I’m not alone — the college coaches poll now includes revealed ballots in the final poll, for example. (And the transparency means quite a bit of interesting reporting and controversy.)

Transparency and accountability are critical.  There’s a reason election monitors show up in third world countries to observe elections.  Outside verification helps ensure that the vote is done legitimately.  I’m not claiming that the Heisman Trust has their finger on the scale.  But there are people out there that think they do.  We already have enough conspiracy theories in college football.  We don’t need ’em swirling around the most prestigious award in all of sport.

Their move is a big mistake.  After all, what I do is part of the hype machine.  In 2009, the closest Heisman race ever (Ingram/Gerhart/McCoy/Suh/Tebow) led to the biggest ratings ever.  The Heisman Trust even bragged about it in a press release.  There’s just one problem:  If it were up to the Heisman folks, no one would have had ANY idea that it was going to be a close race.  It was MY site that told the world that it would be close.  I led SportsCenter on Friday night that year.  3.78 million people watched the show — and I had 1.3 million page views during the two weeks prior to the show.  I helped create that huge level of hype for them.

In any case, I’d be persuaded to knock it off if the Heisman Trust would release the full ballots – every vote, every voter – after the ceremony.  But they won’t.  Heck, the level of secrecy is stunning.  Consider this:

* They won’t even reveal how many voters there are in each state.  (It’s wildly unbalanced, with a tremendous structural bias against the West Coast. For example, 10 votes for Oregon, 22 votes for Oklahoma — even though the states are the same exact size, 3.8m people each.)

* They won’t list who the voters are in each state.

* They won’t even list who the state chairs are in each state.

* They don’t release the totals below the top 10, or the regional breakdowns after the finalists.

* They never release full ballot tabulation, not even anonymously.  (This would make for awesome statistical analysis — is there regional bias? is there positional bias? what percentage of ballots went to linemen? etc.)

* There are six regional chairmen, and since Beano Cook died and Pat Haden went to USC, they won’t even list anything other than “TBD” on the website, though they have surely replaced them.

I see my role as honoring the Heisman by helping bringing a little transparency to it; doing something that the Trust itself should — but doesn’t — do.

 

 

ESPN’s Heather Cox defends Winston interview; Harsh reaction on Twitter

Posted on by

Heather Cox defended her postgame interview with Jameis Winston to Richard Deitsch at SI.com.

Deitsch writes:

Cox said that in the days prior to the broadcast, she and a group of ESPN colleagues (including management) discussed the possibility of a Winston postgame interview. They spoke about how the broadcast would handle questions, especially if Winston had yet to speak out publicly. “I certainly knew if we talked to him I needed to ask questions about the [alleged sexual assault] investigation,” Cox said. “I had thought through the way I wanted to handle it and presented the questions to our team. We all decided it was the correct way to handle it. It was not an issue of me going rogue and deciding last-minute that I would ambush him.

Cox said that ESPN asked and received permission from FSU head coach Jimbo Fisher and two football sports information directors regarding asking Winston questions about the investigation. Cox did not forward her questions, nor did FSU officials ask for any questions, according to Cox.

“They were fully aware that I was going to ask about the investigation,” Cox said. “I was never once asked not to ask about the investigation and if I had been asked not to ask those questions, I would have declined to do the interview because I would not have been able to do my job. I think a lot of people out there think I ambushed him (Winston) and went against Coach Fisher and the Florida State PR group, and that is not at all the case. They were fully aware of my intent to ask questions about the investigation.”

Then there was this:

Cox added that had she been afforded the opportunity to ask her final question, it was going to be about Winston’s upcoming month, including the Heisman Trophy show and other awards. She said she then planned to talk to Fisher and do nothing but a game-related interview with him. Cox said she wanted people to know that Winston did not turn around and walk away. “He was pulled away,” Cox said.

As opposed to others, I did not have a problem with Cox asking Winston about the investigation. She would have been vilified if she didn’t.

Cox got in three questions about the case, and Winston answered. For a postgame, on-the-field interview, that’s pretty good. And it should have been enough, given the setting minutes after a game.

However, where Cox got into trouble was when she attempted to ask a fourth question. She stepped over the line. At that point, it looked like she was badgering him.

As a result, Cox helped turn Winston into a sympathetic figure. She also became part of the story. It wasn’t her intention on either front.

The response on my Twitter feed yesterday was overwhelmingly against Cox.

Did Heather Cox go too far in postgame interview with Jameis Winston?

Posted on by

You be the judge. Jameis Winston answered three questions from Heather Cox about the investigation. On the fourth one, he walked away abruptly.

To be fair to Winston, he did answer Cox’s previous questions. He took accountability for putting himself in that situation. And remember, no charges were filed against him.

It seemed to me the fourth question was a bit of overkill given the timing. It occurred minutes after a big victory for Florida State. It wasn’t the time for a long in-depth interview with Winston.

One question too many in my view.

 

 

 

Charles Davis: Ohio State deserves title shot if it beats Michigan State

Posted on by

Drew Sharp of the Detroit Free Press has Ohio State ranked eighth on his Associated Press ballot. While that’s a bit extreme, I also can’t say that I am all that impressed with the Buckeyes.

In the two games I saw Ohio State in person this year, they gave up to 72 points to Northwestern and Michigan, two teams that had offensive struggles. Florida State might hang 50 points on the Buckeyes if they advance to the BCS title game.

While Charles Davis also has some reservations about Ohio State, he has the Buckeyes at No. 2 in his poll. And sorry Auburn, if they beat Michigan State Saturday in the Big Ten title game, he thinks they deserve a shot at the championship.

Davis and Gus Johnson will be on the call for Saturday’s game in Indianapolis, which should do a terrific rating for Fox Sports.

“If Ohio State wins, I’d be shocked if they aren’t the No. 2 team in the country,” Davis said. “I don’t think you can look at schedules as being apples to apples. When Ohio State scheduled Cal, Cal was a top program under Jeff Tedford.

“It’s still the Big Ten. Anytime you go through a major conference undefeated, there’s something to that. Auburn played great in the SEC, but they lost to LSU, which had three losses.”

But can Ohio State beat Michigan State? Davis thinks a couple of factors come into play.

“The game comes down to (Michigan State quarterback) Connor Cook,” Davis said. “Does he accept the challenge to become a better runner? He’s more capable than what he’s shown. His legs could be the big pressure release for that offense.”

Also, win or lose, Michigan State is guaranteed a bid to the Rose Bowl.

“The Spartans don’t want to be the team that goes to the Rose Bowl through the back door,” Davis said. “They want to earn their way to Pasadena.”

This is the third year Fox will televise the Big Ten title game. I think it foreshadows what will happen when the Big Ten’s TV contract expires with ESPN/ABC in 2016. Fox, which already owns a share of the Big Ten Network, will make a major push to acquire conference rights for Fox and Fox Sports 1.

 

 

 

Great calls: Auburn radio, Lundquist on ‘answered prayer’

Posted on by

Gave thanks for SiriusXM Radio yesterday. While driving home from the Ohio State-Michigan game yesterday (another pretty good game), we were able to listen to the Auburn radio call.

During the entire fourth quarter, Rod Bramblett and Stan White were constantly on the verge of writing off Auburn for dead. Then Alabama kept letting the Tigers off the hook.

Prior to the ill-fated field goal attempt, they were going crazy over the officials putting another second on the clock, giving Alabama a chance to win the game.

Then they went crazy in another way. All in all, it made for an entertaining drive home.

Here’s Verne Lundquist’s call, which also was pretty good. Unlike radio, he went silent to let the pictures tell the story.

Finebaum show to air on SiriusXM, beginning Nov. 25

Posted on by

Just in time for Alabama-Auburn on Nov. 30.

From ESPN:

Beginning Monday, Nov. 25, ESPN Radio’s The Paul Finebaum Show will be available on Sirius XM, part of the ESPN Xtra channel, no. 85, daily lineup. The four-hour program, which airs weekdays from 2 – 6 p.m. ET, made its ESPN Radio debut on August 12, 2013.

The complete weekday lineup on ESPN Xtra (all ET):

12 a.m. – 10 a.m. SportsCenter

10 a.m. – 2 p.m. – Mike & Mike re-air

2 – 6 p.m. The Paul Finebaum Show

6 – 6:30 p.m. – Around the Horn (tape delayed from earlier that day)

6:30 p.m. – 7 p.m. Pardon the Interruption (tape delayed from earlier that day)

7 p.m. – 12 a.m. – ESPNEWS or event coverage

The Paul Finebaum Show, produced by ESPN Radio, showcases Finebaum’s compelling opinions and deep knowledge of the SEC as well as his interaction with his passionate callers, many of whom have followed him for years.

Paul Finebaum on ESPN

Since August 2013, Finebaum has appeared on a variety of other ESPN shows and outlets, including SportsCenter, College Football Live, College GameDay and in ESPN The Magazine. Starting in August 2014, when the SEC Network launches, a television simulcast of Finebaum’s radio show will anchor the network’s afternoon lineup.

Lee Corso: Still getting it done for ESPN ‘GameDay’; Even with a little blood

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana is on the one and only Lee Corso. The old football player even is willing to spill some of his own blood. He got nicked on the lip during this playful sword fight Saturday with Kirk Herbstreit.

Here’s an excerpt from the column.

*******

Lee Corso is 78-years-old, and he admits age is beginning to catch up to him. He still experiences the remnants of a stroke he suffered a few years ago.

Corso has cut back on his schedule and he must do daily vocal and throat exercises to maintain his voice. Hot tea with lemon and honey always is close to his side.

“I gargle twice a day,” Corso said. “You ought to be with me some time.”

The bigger issue, Corso says, is that his brain doesn’t work like it used to.

“I lost the ability to be spontaneous,” Corso said. “My mind used to be really quick. I’m not as quick as I used to be. I have a harder time getting what I want to say from my brain to my mouth.”

Yet you could have fooled me after I recently spent a few minutes with the former Indiana coach on a Friday during preparations for that Saturday’s “College GameDay” on ESPN. Corso was full of energy and anticipation. There was the ever-present twinkle in his eye that spoke of passion, if not a bit of mischief.

He set me up perfectly by telling the story of his final days as a coach in the USFL during the 1980s.

“When the league folded, I knew it was time to get out of coaching,” Corso said. “You know how I knew?”

“No,” I replied, playing the straight man.

“People quit asking me to coach,” said Corso of a line that he surely has said a million times. As I laughed, he had a works-every-time-smile on his face.

It turns out leaving coaching was the best thing that happened to Corso. It also has worked out pretty well for ESPN too.

In 1987, ESPN hired Corso to be an analyst for a fledgling new college football pregame show. Now 26 years later, the man in his 70s is arguably more popular on college campuses than any of the young players he analyzes.

“Coach is the same anywhere we go,” said “GameDay” producer Lee Fitting “His energy and enthusiasm is unbelievable. He’s bringing it every week. It’s hard to put into words what he’s meant to college football. He’s done more to popularize the game than anyone in the last 25 years.”

Corso actually started prepping for the job during a 10-year run as the Hoosiers’ coach from 1973-82. Hardly the Big Ten’s most successful coach with a record of 41-68-2 in Bloomington, Corso realized he had to find another way to keep them entertained.

“At Indiana, I was more famous for my (coach’s) TV show than I was for our teams,” Corso said. “I tell the guys (today’s coaches) all the time, ‘We’re in the entertainment business. College football is our vehicle.’ People think if you’re funny, you can’t be serious. Well, that’s not true.”

*******

The link to the complete column.