1. Actually knows something about football; and

2. Is able to express themselves well without being smarmy, snarky or just plain rude and obnoxious.

Thanks, Eric!

First, you blamed the media for not promoting Lee. Then when it was pointed out that U$C has done nothing to market Lee, but has marketed Barkley, you try to defend U$C by saying U$C is only going to market what it thinks is the best candidate. When it is pointed you are contradicting your earlier statement, you now state that the media is indeed not “considering” Lee, and that it has nothing to do with the U$C.

So let’s see if the media is “considering” Lee.

According to the 10.30.12 espn.com Heisman Watch poll, Lee was sixth, including one third place vote. Barkley is now 10th. Klein was first, with Te’o second, and Barner third.

If you go back to the 9.11.12 poll, Barkley was first, Lee was 6th, with one first place vote. That was nonsensical, because if you look at the game prior to 9.11.12, the “pundits” are looking at U$C’s game against Syracuse and Barkley’s 6 TDs. But Barkley’s stats were actually mediocre – 187 yards, 23-30, and 1 INT. It was his WRs who made him look good – Woods ran one play for 76 yards, had a punt return for 31 yards, Xavier Grimble made a TD out of a 5 yard pass (breaking three tackles), and the last TD to Lee was a terrible underthrown fade pattern that Lee wrestled away from the defender. Not surprisingly, Woods was given the game ball by espn.com

But now go back to May 2012. In that case, Barkley was on the initial Heisman Pundit list, along with DeAnthony Thomas, but no Marquis Lee. See http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/38128/three-from-pac-12-on-heisman-watchlist.

So it seems that the media was first in love with Barkley, then continued to give credit to Barkley when it was clear he was riding the coattails of his receivers (but starting to recognize love for the receivers), and now have correctly dropped Barkley below his receiver.

Why? Because U$C had nothing to promote Lee, but, as you acknowledged before but now back away from, U$C wanted to push Barkley and did not push Lee. Had it made Lee a focal point, Lee probably still gets invited to NY, notwithstanding the poor performance of his team.

You just can’t admit that U$C backed the wrong guy.

Your statement about the merits just confirms what I was saying and you ignored. Lee is no doubt great – far, far better than Barkley is or ever was – and it is the stupidity of the institution that has denied Lee a prospect of greatness. And it further supports my point that Barkley is a weak-armed, easily rattled QB who, when he is drafted, will join the long history of disappointing U$C QBs in the NFL.

Sorry, but a winning record is not enough. If that were the case, Stanford would have won three straight Heisman trophies. It is relative expectations, as a I wrote before and you ignored. Luck did not meet those relative expectations, but Griffin vastly exceeded them. That is why Griffin won. U$C was a near unanimous choice to play in the NC game this year, and Barkley was (totally incorrectly) perceived to the Heisman front-runner. Since both have failed miserably to meet those expectations, anyone who deserves recognition on that team is going to be short-changed. Lee will be first team all-american, and will have a very good pro career. Barkley will not be an all-american, and will not have a good pro career.

You state that until Matt Leinart, not one Heisman played on a NC winner. Just in case you missed, I’ll write what I previously wrote:

“But most importantly the relative success of the team is key. That is why T’eo is in the discussion this tear, as was the Honey Badger last year. That is why Griffin ultimately won and Luck lost. That is why, of the prior 20 winners, many came from teams winning the national championship or playing in a game that determined the national championship. That is why neither Barkley nor Lee can win – U$C, on a relative basis, has had the worst performance this year thus far.”

Let’s take a look at the winners from the past 20 years, and count up how many came from teams that played in NC games. Recall that the Heisman trophy winner is selected before the NC game:

1991 Desmond Howard Michigan WR Jr.
1992 Gino Torretta Miami (Fla) QB Sr.
1993 Charlie Ward Florida State QB Sr.
1994 Rashaan Salaam Colorado RB Jr.
1995 Eddie George Ohio State RB Sr.
1996 Danny Wuerffel Florida QB Sr.
1997 Charles Woodson Michigan CB Jr.
1998 Ricky Williams Texas RB Sr.
1999 Ron Dayne Wisconsin RB Sr.
2000 Chris Weinke Florida State QB Sr.
2001 Eric Crouch Nebraska QB Sr.
2002 Carson Palmer USC QB Sr.
2003 Jason White Oklahoma QB Jr.
2004 Matt Leinart USC QB Jr.
2006 Troy Smith Ohio State QB Sr.
2007 Tim Tebow Florida QB Sop
2008 Sam Bradford Oklahoma QB Sop
2009 Mark Ingram Alabama RB Sop
2010 Cam Newton Auburn QB Jr.
2011 Robert Griffin III Baylor University QB Jr.

The Heisman winner played for a team that was in the BCS championship game in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Thus, the only missing years were 1998, 1999, 2002, 2007, and 2011. 1998 and 1999 were record breaking years by running backs. 2002 was the Carson Palmer year, which was arguably the most undeserved Heisman of all time. 2007 was Tim Tebow, which is a great example of hype overcoming results. 2011 was, like Ricky Williams and Ron Dayne, the case of someone blowing away expectations and taking their team well beyond what was projected.

Now anything pre-BCS is somewhat suspect, because teams with automatic bowl tie-ins may have been locked out of a NC game. But in 1991, Michigan played UW (one of top NC teams); in 1992, Miami played Alabama (NC); in 1993 FSU was the NC; in 1994 Colorado was not involved; in 1995 Ohio State was locked into the Rose Bowl; 1996 Florida was the NC; and in 1997 Michigan was the NC.

So counting that up, 5 and out 7 were directly involved in a NC game. So 14 out of 19 Heisman Trophy winners played for teams that won the national championship game or played for the national championship.

Next?

Here is what I said in #140:

“Just about everyone in the press hates USC. No one wants us to win and no one wants any of our players to top notch billing.

Case in point: Why isn’t Marquise Lee being considered (or even mentioned) for the Heisman?”

Please notice the word “considered”. The fact that Lee is not being considered (or even mentioned) for the Heisman does not rest with SC. It is the press! Where is the press?

Are you saying that the press is getting its key from the SC media desk? Are you implying that the press is just waiting for SC to come out with a “Marqise for Heisman” billboard before they at least consider his merits?

His merits speak for his own worth.

88 receptions
+1200 yards of receiving
+9 TDs
One of the most explosive return men in the country

No one needs USC’s glorification of the greatest player in the country today before he should be considered. His merits speak loud and clear.

SC has a winning record and that’s all it takes to win the Heisman. It doesn’t take a #1 team or even a 1 loss team. Just ask RGIII. In fact since 1998-2003 not one Heisman winner played on the NC. It wasn’t until 2004 that Matt Leinart won the award and SC won the NC. Then from 2005-2011 only Newtown and Ingram did it too.

You keeping shifting your target of inquiry, abandoning your previous baseless assertions and scrambling to find something else to latch on to. So let me crush this one as well, and we’ll see you spend countless hours trying to come up with something new, ending it with “Cal State” or “UC East Bay” and then add to something silly like “infantile knowledge.”

You asserted that the reason why Lee was not in the Heisman discussion was because the media “hates us.” I pointed out that the problem was U$C was backing the wrong player – Lee was primed last year to be in the Heisman discussion this year (see DeAnthony Thomas for comparative purposes) but U$C decided not to do it. You acknowledge I was right, because you admit in #146 that U$C rewarded Barkley for coming back, knowing that Lee had another year of eligibility, and that WRs tend not to win the Heisman. In other words, the media had nothing to do with, it was an institutional decision. A dumb one, and possibly with racial overtones, based upon the clear evidence from last year that the WRs were making Barkley look half-way decent, as they have continued to do this year notwithstanding the massive chokes Barkley has suffered.

And you (unintentionally?) sell Lee short, because he is more than a WR. He is also a kick returner, and, indeed, that is what makes him particularly unique. Note that in your list of prior winners, both Woodsen and Howard (and Tim Brown in 1987, before your cut-off) were return specialists in addition to their other roles. There is a good basis to push a candidate who is both a WR and a returner.

In acknowleding that QBs and RBs tend to win it, I don’t dispute the obvious fact. That is a straw man argument, because the QB and the RB are, by far, the most high profile positions in college football, and the Heisman is determined by the media. Holmes arguably is the most valuable on U$C, but I’m guessing 95% of the media members have no clue who he is. It takes superlative effort for another position player to be in the running, but once they have broken through to the national consciousness, they can easily win (like Howard, who at the time he won had the biggest voting margin). But most importantly the relative success of the team is key. That is why T’eo is in the discussion this tear, as was the Honey Badger last year. That is why Griffin ultimately won and Luck lost. That is why, of the prior 20 winners, many came from teams winning the national championship or playing in a game that determined the national championship. That is why neither Barkley nor Lee can win – U$C, on a relative basis, has had the worst performance this year thus far.

Since U$C serves only to provide a national stage for good to great teams look even better, it may very well be the case that U$C will boost the candidacy of Barner and T’eo, even if they had no shot at the start of the season.

But what do I know? I only have “infantile knowledge” of football.

Could it be that USC promoted Barkley because he came back to play another year foregoing millions in NFL money?

Could it be that USC knew that Lee had another year after this one whereas Barkley did not?

Could it be that USC knows the chances of a WR winning the Heisman over a QB or RB is next to impossible.The last pure WR to do it was Desmond Howard in 1991. Of the past 20 winners 13 have been QBs and the rest have been RBs (with the exception of Charles Woodson who won as a multi purpose player/primarily DB in 1997).

Keep exposing your infantile football knowledge. You will join most of the posters on this blog.

Rather than crying about a media conspiracy like Rush Limbaugh (but maybe that is a new nickname, since you have to be addicted to meds, love to troll around looking for attention, and happily respond to Moron), maybe it is because U$C decided to promote the clean-cut white kid from vanilla Orange County instead of the non-white guys from tough neighborhood surrounding Serra when everyone knew Barkley is pasta-armed whose kudos are directly related to a set of gifted receivers? I’ll let you draw whatever reasonable inferences you can muster from that fact pattern.

Just about everyone in the press hates USC. No one wants us to win and no one wants any of our players to top notch billing.

Case in point: Why isn’t Marquise Lee being considered (or even mentioned) for the Heisman?

It is because the press hates us.

WASH THAT ORANGE DUST OFF YOUR FACE!! IT’S EMBARASSING!!!!