BOOYAH Alphagriz1 TEBOW WON THE HEISMAN!

[cats2506]

Referencing Wiki generally discredits whoever uses it as a source of info! You might choose another reference source. That posting on Wiki you linked is WRONG....as usual for Wiki!

OK CR what is wrong in the wiki posting about the Heisman.

Just the VERY FIRST SENTENCE!! LOL

After that...I kinda quit reading. Wiki is chronically wrong, and anyone essentially can post info on WIKI. So it is not a vetted and sourced reference tool.

At my kids school, and within our entire school district, they will automatically flunk any student who uses WIKI as a reference for a research paper or assignment it is so unreliable.

Just a word to the wise......

Though balloting is open for all football players in all divisions of college football, the winners usually represent Division I FBS schools. The closest that a player outside of the modern Division I FBS came to winning the Heisman is third place. Steve McNair, from Division I-AA (now Division I FCS) Alcorn State, finished third in the voting in 1994

Reread what I posted, is that WRONG, or are you WRONG

[College Recruiter]

Referencing Wiki generally discredits whoever uses it as a source of info! You might choose another reference source. That posting on Wiki you linked is WRONG....as usual for Wiki!

OK CR what is wrong in the wiki posting about the Heisman.

Just the VERY FIRST SENTENCE!! LOL

After that...I kinda quit reading. Wiki is chronically wrong, and anyone essentially can post info on WIKI. So it is not a vetted and sourced reference tool.

At my kids school, and within our entire school district, they will automatically flunk any student who uses WIKI as a reference for a research paper or assignment it is so unreliable.

Just a word to the wise......

Though balloting is open for all football players in all divisions of college football, the winners usually represent Division I FBS schools. The closest that a player outside of the modern Division I FBS came to winning the Heisman is third place. Steve McNair, from Division I-AA (now Division I FCS) Alcorn State, finished third in the voting in 1994

Reread what I posted, is that WRONG, or are you WRONG

Wikipedia (First sentence):

"The Heisman Memorial Trophy Award (often known simply as the Heisman Trophy or The Heisman), named after former college football player and coach John Heisman, is awarded annually by the Yale Club of New York City to the most outstanding player in the Bowl Subdivision of Division I collegiate football. "

Yep...that would be wrong!! LOL You can stick with Wiki if you like....but it's for amateurs. Even the middle schoolers can't use it cuz it tends to be whack more often than not!

[cats2506]

Referencing Wiki generally discredits whoever uses it as a source of info! You might choose another reference source. That posting on Wiki you linked is WRONG....as usual for Wiki!

OK CR what is wrong in the wiki posting about the Heisman.

Just the VERY FIRST SENTENCE!! LOL

After that...I kinda quit reading. Wiki is chronically wrong, and anyone essentially can post info on WIKI. So it is not a vetted and sourced reference tool.

At my kids school, and within our entire school district, they will automatically flunk any student who uses WIKI as a reference for a research paper or assignment it is so unreliable.

Just a word to the wise......

Though balloting is open for all football players in all divisions of college football, the winners usually represent Division I FBS schools. The closest that a player outside of the modern Division I FBS came to winning the Heisman is third place. Steve McNair, from Division I-AA (now Division I FCS) Alcorn State, finished third in the voting in 1994

Reread what I posted, is that WRONG, or are you WRONG

Wikipedia (First sentence):

"The Heisman Memorial Trophy Award (often known simply as the Heisman Trophy or The Heisman), named after former college football player and coach John Heisman, is awarded annually by the Yale Club of New York City to the most outstanding player in the Bowl Subdivision of Division I collegiate football. "

Yep...that would be wrong!! LOL You can stick with Wiki if you like....but it's for amateurs. Even the middle schoolers can't use it cuz it tends to be whack more often than not!

Soooo... Your therory is to demean the poster and the source no matter what the post is, in fact you dont even read the statment. Any site, even NEWS sites are often wrong. I only posted the link because I copied the wording from it. But YOU choose to ignore what I posted and then are critical because I posted the link to where I copied the words from.

I ask again, WAS I WRONG IN MY ORIGIONAL POST?

[College Recruiter]

Alright, well, if Woodhead was really considered, I am proven wrong. If that was the case, I don't understand how a great player at a D2 school is considered, but not a great player at the D-1AA level (Armanti Edwards).

Edwards had a great season...especially for a sophomore. But his numbers just don't compare to the top 3 QB's in the running for Heisman.

Tebow 4066 offensive yards 51 TD's

Edwards 3249 offensive yards 35 TD's

If he keeps putting up numbers like that (or better) the next few years...he, like Woodhead, will undoubtedly be on the Heisman lists in a year or two.

Tebow deserved the award by virtue of his stats, his leadership, his off field persona, and of course Florida has a good PR machine. The best man won in my opinion. Nice when the system works.

[College Recruiter]

Soooo... Your therory is to demean the poster and the source no matter what the post is, in fact you dont even read the statment. Any site, even NEWS sites are often wrong. I only posted the link because I copied the wording from it. But YOU choose to ignore what I posted and then are critical because I posted the link to where I copied the words from.I ask again, WAS I WRONG IN MY ORIGIONAL POST?

Ummm....relax 2506...All I said was "the WIKI link you provided that the first sentence was wrong".............I simply stated WIKI was unreliable and it can discredit anyone who uses it as a source. I was thinking maybe you did not know this and simply passed it along for your edification. There was not a jab at you personally. Just a little friendly advice....

Me thinks somebody has their panties in a bunch for no reason.

A pill is in order........

ps: get into google and type in "unreliable wikipedia"...you will get many many many pages of articles and passages about the failures and shortcomings of WIKI. Well.....now you know!

Carry on....

[cats2506]

Soooo... Your therory is to demean the poster and the source no matter what the post is, in fact you dont even read the statment. Any site, even NEWS sites are often wrong. I only posted the link because I copied the wording from it. But YOU choose to ignore what I posted and then are critical because I posted the link to where I copied the words from.I ask again, WAS I WRONG IN MY ORIGIONAL POST?

Ummm....relax 2506...All I said was "the WIKI link you provided that the first sentence was wrong".............I simply stated WIKI was unreliable and it can discredit anyone who uses it as a source. I was thinking maybe you did not know this and simply passed it along for your edification. There was not a jab at you personally. Just a little friendly advice....

Me thinks somebody has their panties in a bunch for no reason.

A pill is in order........

ps: get into google and type in "unreliable wikipedia"...you will get many many many pages of articles and passages about the failures and shortcomings of WIKI. Well.....now you know!

Carry on....

No, I'm just sick of seeing you spout off all the time and demeaning other posters and acting like some kind of expert, when you are wrong as often as not.

[College Recruiter]

Soooo... Your therory is to demean the poster and the source no matter what the post is, in fact you dont even read the statment. Any site, even NEWS sites are often wrong. I only posted the link because I copied the wording from it. But YOU choose to ignore what I posted and then are critical because I posted the link to where I copied the words from.I ask again, WAS I WRONG IN MY ORIGIONAL POST?

Ummm....relax 2506...All I said was "the WIKI link you provided that the first sentence was wrong".............I simply stated WIKI was unreliable and it can discredit anyone who uses it as a source. I was thinking maybe you did not know this and simply passed it along for your edification. There was not a jab at you personally. Just a little friendly advice....

Me thinks somebody has their panties in a bunch for no reason.

A pill is in order........

ps: get into google and type in "unreliable wikipedia"...you will get many many many pages of articles and passages about the failures and shortcomings of WIKI. Well.....now you know!

Carry on....

No, I'm just sick of seeing you spout off all the time and demeaning other posters and acting like some kind of expert, when you are wrong as often as not.

Wiki on 2506....Wiki on.

[cats2506]

Soooo... Your therory is to demean the poster and the source no matter what the post is, in fact you dont even read the statment. Any site, even NEWS sites are often wrong. I only posted the link because I copied the wording from it. But YOU choose to ignore what I posted and then are critical because I posted the link to where I copied the words from.I ask again, WAS I WRONG IN MY ORIGIONAL POST?

Ummm....relax 2506...All I said was "the WIKI link you provided that the first sentence was wrong".............I simply stated WIKI was unreliable and it can discredit anyone who uses it as a source. I was thinking maybe you did not know this and simply passed it along for your edification. There was not a jab at you personally. Just a little friendly advice....

Me thinks somebody has their panties in a bunch for no reason.

A pill is in order........

ps: get into google and type in "unreliable wikipedia"...you will get many many many pages of articles and passages about the failures and shortcomings of WIKI. Well.....now you know!

Carry on....

No, I'm just sick of seeing you spout off all the time and demeaning other posters and acting like some kind of expert, when you are wrong as often as not.

Wiki on 2506....Wiki on.

I noticed that you still haven't admited that my original post and the quotes in it were spot on, not that I really expected you too.

[College Recruiter]

Soooo... Your therory is to demean the poster and the source no matter what the post is, in fact you dont even read the statment. Any site, even NEWS sites are often wrong. I only posted the link because I copied the wording from it. But YOU choose to ignore what I posted and then are critical because I posted the link to where I copied the words from.I ask again, WAS I WRONG IN MY ORIGIONAL POST?

Ummm....relax 2506...All I said was "the WIKI link you provided that the first sentence was wrong".............I simply stated WIKI was unreliable and it can discredit anyone who uses it as a source. I was thinking maybe you did not know this and simply passed it along for your edification. There was not a jab at you personally. Just a little friendly advice....

Me thinks somebody has their panties in a bunch for no reason.

A pill is in order........

ps: get into google and type in "unreliable wikipedia"...you will get many many many pages of articles and passages about the failures and shortcomings of WIKI. Well.....now you know!

Carry on....

No, I'm just sick of seeing you spout off all the time and demeaning other posters and acting like some kind of expert, when you are wrong as often as not.

Wiki on 2506....Wiki on.

I noticed that you still haven't admited that my original post and the quotes in it were spot on, not that I really expected you too.

You want to get into an argument...and I don't. Let me leave it at this. I never questioned your post....just the Wikipedia reference link and the info contained in that link. Thats all.......

As for the remainder of the content of the posting. I must admit that once I read the first sentence of the link leading off your post and saw that the first sentence was factually wrong, I did not pay too much attention to your personal comments. So I have never commented on your comments, and frankly, did not read them once I left the Wiki link leading your post.

So with that.......have a double high ball.....take a few deep breaths....maybe go outside and breath in some cool Montana air....and RELAX! I have no fight with you or with what you said in your intitial post because I did not finish reading it.

If your lookin' for a fight...I am sure AlphaGriz or EastCoastGriz or GIW will be happy to take up some kind of battle with you since you seem full of piss and vinegar tonight.......

[cats2506]

Soooo... Your therory is to demean the poster and the source no matter what the post is, in fact you dont even read the statment. Any site, even NEWS sites are often wrong. I only posted the link because I copied the wording from it. But YOU choose to ignore what I posted and then are critical because I posted the link to where I copied the words from.I ask again, WAS I WRONG IN MY ORIGIONAL POST?

Ummm....relax 2506...All I said was "the WIKI link you provided that the first sentence was wrong".............I simply stated WIKI was unreliable and it can discredit anyone who uses it as a source. I was thinking maybe you did not know this and simply passed it along for your edification. There was not a jab at you personally. Just a little friendly advice....

Me thinks somebody has their panties in a bunch for no reason.

A pill is in order........

ps: get into google and type in "unreliable wikipedia"...you will get many many many pages of articles and passages about the failures and shortcomings of WIKI. Well.....now you know!

Carry on....

No, I'm just sick of seeing you spout off all the time and demeaning other posters and acting like some kind of expert, when you are wrong as often as not.

Wiki on 2506....Wiki on.

I noticed that you still haven't admited that my original post and the quotes in it were spot on, not that I really expected you too.

You want to get into an argument...and I don't. Let me leave it at this. I never questioned your post....just the Wikipedia reference link and the info contained in that link. Thats all.......

As for the remainder of the content of the posting. I must admit that once I read the first sentence of the link leading off your post and saw that the first sentence was factually wrong, I did not pay too much attention to your personal comments. So I have never commented on your comments, and frankly, did not read them once I left the Wiki link leading your post.

So with that.......have a double high ball.....take a few deep breaths....maybe go outside and breath in some cool Montana air....and RELAX! I have no fight with you or with what you said in your intitial post because I did not finish reading it.

If your lookin' for a fight...I am sure AlphaGriz or EastCoastGriz or GIW will be happy to take up some kind of battle with you since you seem full of piss and vinegar tonight.......

You said that you discredit me, because I used wiki as a source. YOU picked the fight, I am just defending my original post and you dont have the balls to admit that you didn't read it and discredited it anyway. That is what pisses me off about you.

If you are going to smack sombodys post you really should read it and then disagree with it and show where the post is wrong.

I'm waiting for more CR BS

[College Recruiter]

Soooo... Your therory is to demean the poster and the source no matter what the post is, in fact you dont even read the statment. Any site, even NEWS sites are often wrong. I only posted the link because I copied the wording from it. But YOU choose to ignore what I posted and then are critical because I posted the link to where I copied the words from.I ask again, WAS I WRONG IN MY ORIGIONAL POST?

Ummm....relax 2506...All I said was "the WIKI link you provided that the first sentence was wrong".............I simply stated WIKI was unreliable and it can discredit anyone who uses it as a source. I was thinking maybe you did not know this and simply passed it along for your edification. There was not a jab at you personally. Just a little friendly advice....

Me thinks somebody has their panties in a bunch for no reason.

A pill is in order........

ps: get into google and type in "unreliable wikipedia"...you will get many many many pages of articles and passages about the failures and shortcomings of WIKI. Well.....now you know!

Carry on....

No, I'm just sick of seeing you spout off all the time and demeaning other posters and acting like some kind of expert, when you are wrong as often as not.

Wiki on 2506....Wiki on.

I noticed that you still haven't admited that my original post and the quotes in it were spot on, not that I really expected you too.

You want to get into an argument...and I don't. Let me leave it at this. I never questioned your post....just the Wikipedia reference link and the info contained in that link. Thats all.......

As for the remainder of the content of the posting. I must admit that once I read the first sentence of the link leading off your post and saw that the first sentence was factually wrong, I did not pay too much attention to your personal comments. So I have never commented on your comments, and frankly, did not read them once I left the Wiki link leading your post.

So with that.......have a double high ball.....take a few deep breaths....maybe go outside and breath in some cool Montana air....and RELAX! I have no fight with you or with what you said in your intitial post because I did not finish reading it.

If your lookin' for a fight...I am sure AlphaGriz or EastCoastGriz or GIW will be happy to take up some kind of battle with you since you seem full of piss and vinegar tonight.......

You said that you discredit me, because I used wiki as a source. YOU picked the fight, I am just defending my original post and you dont have the balls to admit that you didn't read it and discredited it anyway. That is what pisses me off about you.

If you are going to smack sombodys post you really should read it and then disagree with it and show where the post is wrong.

I'm waiting for more CR BS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_to_th ... ression%29

[cats2506]

nice tap out CR

[College Recruiter]

ahem.....about that Heisman award......thoughts, complaints, issues??

[futurebobcat]

ahem.....about that Heisman award......thoughts, complaints, issues??

aparantly there is ill feelings according to alpha. thats why i posted it.
but he knows more than the voters.. we'll give that to him

[TIrwin24]

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but doesn't Woodhead play D2? Not so sure the Heisman committee looks at players past the FBS. Maybe you guys were just being facetious.

I honestly wonder why the Heisman has lost its luster in people's minds. this calls for a lengthy research project, but I will say right now that from what I know of the Heisman winners:
1) They have always been almost all QB or RB
2) They have always been juniors or seniors
3) They have always played on distinguished teams

If this is the case, then the standards today are fairly consistent with the standards 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. So why has the public opinion of it changed?

I promise to do some research and come back with a theory (not that anyone really cares, )

You forgot the 2-9 Notre Dame qb. I won't even bring his name up as a deserving Heisman winner. Also, Andre Ware won by putting up similar numbers as Brennan.

Anyway, my favorite Heisman moment, is Mario Bailey posing as the Heismen trophey as Washington crushed Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Talk about overhyped Heisman winner, Desmond Howard.

There will be a 3-time Heisman winner, it just won't be Tebow. Locker is the man. I remember an announcer earlier this year in an national audience game introducing the world to Locker. He said something to the effect, "All of you have by now heard about Tim Tebow, the Florida quarterback, well Locker does everything Tebow does for Florida except he just runs it faster, is more physical, and has a better arm."

If Tebow can win it for a 3 loss Florida team, PAC-10 freshman of the year Jake Locker can win it for a less than perfect Washington team.

Dude, lay off the drugs.
Although Jake Locker is an outstanding quarterback, the kid is going to get his $hit rocked way worse than what happened at Oregon State if he keeps running the ball the way he does. Plus he can't throw to save his life.

[AlphaGriz1]

ahem.....about that Heisman award......thoughts, complaints, issues??

aparantly there is ill feelings according to alpha. thats why i posted it.
but he knows more than the voters.. we'll give that to him

Finally some sanity in this thread.

[futurebobcat]

ahem.....about that Heisman award......thoughts, complaints, issues??

aparantly there is ill feelings according to alpha. thats why i posted it.
but he knows more than the voters.. we'll give that to him

Finally some sanity in this thread.

Sarcasm? lol