Many bloggers do cat blogging on Fridays. We Heisman Blog.
This fine American Friday, we have just two items.
- First, Memphis' DeAngelo Williams' Heisman campaign is already in full swing. First, the SID at Memphis sent around some Williams themed race cars to various sportswriters. That laid the groundwork for the biggie---DeAngelo's Heisman website: "Race For The Heisman".
We like it, it's got a consistent them, the cars are so popular they've already sold out, and the website features some nice video and looks like it can be semi-regularly updated. That said, it's still not on par with the brilliant blog Matt Leinart put together. Too bad Matt/the USC folks haven't updated it in forever. Oh well, it served its purpose last year just fine!
In fact, Williams website reminds us of Darren Sproles' website last year that promoted him for the Heisman with another dazzling video.
- Our next item has to do with something about Heisman voting we didn't notice until last year. Heck, there's no way we could have noticed it until last year. Heisman voters are demonstrably conservative.
What really put it together for the Resource folks was analyzing the available Heisman resources.
For three years now, a website called Heisman Projection has accurately predicted the winner of the race. Projection gathered a wide swath of Heisman voters' public votes every year, and using a formula to account for regional balance, more or less nailed both the predictions for the winner and the overall vote percentages of the winner and runner-up. That is, until last year.
Heisman Projection did accurately name Matt Leinart the Heisman winner, but it had a significantly more narrow margin of victory than the actual margin.
The projection had Matt Leinart at 1181 points to Adrian Peterson's 1052. That would have given Messr. Leinart a slim 2.7% margin. In fact, he won by 7% (of the five person field).
Where did this gap come from? The Resource theory is that Projection's voters were heavily skewed towards sportswriters opinionmakers. For whatever reason, they chose Matt Leinart by a much more slim margin than the actual outcome. From this we can infer that although Projection gathered an impressively large statistical sample, it wasn't a great sample. But that's not his fault. Many Heisman voters' identies are a mystery. They don't have to be public about their vote or who they are.
It was this large bloc of silent voters that chose Matt Leinart for the Heisman trophy by a large percentage compared to Projection's sample. We call this silent bloc of voters the Heisman "Silent Majority". It has a Nixonian feel, no? And much like the Silent Majority's sustained power over national politics, this silent majority heavily influences Heisman outcomes.
Had the silent majority not been voting, the Heisman trophy had a slim but still possible chance of being awarded to Oklahoma freshman Adrian Peterson. In the end, Matt Leinart won the thing by a quite comfortable margin.
Lesson learned: there is a powerful, heavily influential bloc of Heisman voters who adhere to the before-unspoken Heisman rules, the Heismandments. Adrian Peterson's youth and lack of a body of work beyond his freshman season probably did him in last year.
That's all, enjoy your Friday!