While there are many arrogant topics related to politics this year, we would like to introduce some that we hope will be a refreshing change of pace. Compared to this election, where our sacred democracy was saved because the majority had the audacity to vote for a candidate of their own choice rather than the “chosen candidate” of the cultural elite. , is completely irrelevant and trivial.
mark thornton
In another life, as sports editor of the Vicksburg Post, I had the honor of being one of five Heisman Trophy voters in the state. The deadline for voting was early December. But by the first week of November, you could expect to get a call from state Heisman president Stan Torgerson asking why you hadn’t submitted it for a vote yet.
I always give the same explanation. Torgerson, you have a lot of big games left. You can’t make a decision until you see how the top players perform when the pressure is on and the stakes are highest. ”
I’m sure sports fans understand that, but so did Mr. Torgerson, God rest his soul. He was just doing his job and making sure his constituents maintained a record of 100 percent participation in the process. That was something he was very proud of.
But I was also trying to do my part responsibly by being as informed as possible before filling out my ballot. I took it so seriously that I had a bit of a run-in with one of the state’s most respected sports figures.
Some voters will find the best candidate in their area and vote for him no matter what. They may submit their ballots in October. No matter what happens during the season, their minds won’t change. Even if someone in a rival region is definitely better, they’re hitting a home run, that’s all. But if a player on the team suffers some kind of serious injury midway through the season, like a torn ligament or, heaven forbid, a severe brain injury, that vote becomes ridiculous to the rest of the country. You can see it. It would rob a deserving candidate of honoring the greatest individual award in all sports and all it represents.
Some voters feel peer pressure. They know deep down that someone else could be a better player, but they want others to love them, so they just stick to the crowd and act accordingly. I’ll vote.
Some voters did not have enough information to make good decisions. And it wasn’t necessarily their fault. After all, they had their own game to cover and had to write that story and package of notes quickly to meet a deadline. That doesn’t leave much time for family chores or watching other games.
Not being able to see the entire game makes it difficult for voters to understand a candidate’s true value and contribution. There are so many variables that say a lot more than a stat line can tell you, whether it’s making big plays when you need them most, situational awareness, demeanor, etc. That’s important when choosing the best players.
Still, most of us relied on the highlights and recaps provided by the sports media on their Sunday shows. We saw what they wanted us to see. Many of the committee’s “experts” then recommended the candidate they thought was the most suitable. Some people are quick to announce which candidate they will vote for.
Naturally, domestic voters heard that and assumed that the people speaking on TV had far more information and expertise than they did, so too many voters made decisions based on that commentary and continued to promote ideas that were perceived as problematic. Bigger than ourselves. You can’t blame them for that. After all, we entrust so many other aspects of our lives to experts, so why not this area too? Find someone you trust and follow his advice . Easy enough. So blame him if it was the wrong choice. Or you can listen to him justify that poor choice week after week and just parrot his talking points. Even better.
The impact of sports institutions on moving the needle around the world Voting cannot be underestimated. Not only are sportscasters able to pick highlights and notable plays and push certain candidates in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, but many pundits and commentators are also compromised. If there is a candidate from their alma mater, they will openly campaign for that candidate and may even try to fabricate reasons not to vote for the other candidate. After all, having a Heisman winner at his alma mater will not only help his future recruiting efforts, but will also make him a popular figure at alumni events. Its power can be effective in many different ways, and it can also be intoxicating. You can’t fault a man who is humane and loyal.
Sometimes people in these positions begin to push certain candidates, not necessarily because of their qualifications, but to right a perceived past injustice. It happened during one of the most memorable election years I’ve been involved with. Peyton Manning was one of the greatest quarterbacks in college football history. He returned to Tennessee for his senior year, and despite being supposed to be the No. 1 draft pick after his junior year, he had an incredible run with wins.
But instead of celebrating Manning’s statement that he would return to play for the Vols for another year, sports insiders pushed a single message throughout the second half of the season: Defensive players win the Heisman. It’s time to do it!”
Voters couldn’t resist the chance to make history and helped Charles Woodson break the glass ceiling in 1997. Justice was served — at least for those who were looking for a “D.” But that “justice” for Woodson was perhaps the greatest injustice in Heisman history for Manning. He worked harder than anyone and studied film longer than anyone else. And his leadership and ability led to the success of the entire team, with everyone working together toward a common goal of winning together, regardless of race or social status. But that was fine because Peyton was perceived as “privileged.”
I did my part by voting for Manning, but as it turns out, this wasn’t the first time I’d voted for him to lose. If I remember correctly, I’ve only voted for the winner twice, maybe three times in six years. (If I did, I’d end up going down an Internet rabbit hole.) I’m proud of that record. Because I’ve always voted for players I believed were deserving — even Warrick Dunn (5th place in 1996) — regardless of outside influence. If I had been there in 1994, I would have voted for Steve McNair. Not to right a past injustice against small schools, but because he earned it.
A popular player among influencers this year is two-way player Travis Hunter from Colorado. His program and coaches are a prime example of what’s wrong with college football today…but it’s not his fault, and voters shouldn’t blame him for it. he’s a great athlete. There is also support for Boise State running back Ashton Giunty. He plays most of his games at times when many voters don’t see him, and despite his storied track record, he still maintains an outsider reputation among traditionalists. There is. He would be the first Heisman winner in the modern era from a program without a strong pedigree.
I choose not to listen to sports pundits, but I’m sure there will be some intense candidate sales in the broadcast booths this weekend to encourage them to choose their “first.” I’m sure. Voters always seem to be caught up in it too, wanting to be involved in making history rather than thinking about making the best choice based on merit. This vote will be interesting, as one of the two favorites will meet that criteria. The guess here is that Hunter will win the Heisman — and Neon Dion will steal the spotlight while a bunch of shameless spotlight-seeking cronies unconsciously fold their arms, shake their heads, and stare. He will humbly brag about his accomplishments. Camera – If you can see where you are looking from behind the shade.
But if I still had my ballot, I would vote for Gentil. That’s because he is a classic overachiever who stayed at the school he signed with and helped push it to No. 11 in the rankings, rather than transferring his talent to a traditional powerhouse. Get more fame and more NIL funds.
Hunter and Giunty were playing at the same time early Friday morning (after this column was written) in front of a larger-than-usual television audience, so those performances will likely go a long way in determining which player wins the trophy. may become extremely important. And you better believe a lot of blockhead influencers are going to screw up, using the English language to rant about who’s going to vote and why.
Fortunately, the Heisman Committee canceled early voting. Starting in 2009, voting will take place in late November or early December and must be cast just before the Heisman announcement weekend. That’s how it should be.
Electronic voting is easy to track because there aren’t that many Heisman voters. But if cybersecurity becomes a concern, Heisman voters may agree to hand-deliver their ballots to the presiding officer (or “voting station”) on a designated day after the season ends. After all, being a Heisman voter is both an important responsibility and a privilege. Only those who are willing to make the effort to vote should be allowed to vote. This helps ensure that decisions are made by people who are committed to democracy. And while it is not infallible, it lends credibility to the process and produces a winner that can be believed to have been fairly selected.
Isn’t it refreshing to read something that has nothing to do with politics?
