December 12, 2009

Ingram wins, white people cry.

The media has spoken. But, the people haven't, and guess what America, you don't get to. Is it unfair? Yes. Is it un-American? Yes. Does the media really deserve the right to make a judgment? No.

This is why. The Heisman voting system is a fucked up collaboration of douchebags (Jay Marrioti) all of which care more about tradition and total wins, over the players with the stats and the better seasons. Sure, Ingram was great, but Toby Gerhart was a fucking killer. He out ran Ingram by 200 yards, and did so by almost double the touchdowns. Without such a presence in the backfield, Stanford wouldn't be bowling, and Jim Harbaugh's name wouldn't have been atop the top of the KU coaching list.

He made this team, and without him, there is no Stanford. You could say the same for Suh, but Gerhart was the best player. That's what the Heisman is. The best player. There are different ways to pick that player, but in every way, Gerhart wins. It's so obvious that you almost need to be a catatonic to vote against him. He was the most influential player in the nation, and he used his influence to statistically dominate and win games.

So fuck you voters. Just because you chose a career where the pay scale cuts off at 80k, doesn't mean you should communist the voting for the Heisman. Let's do a people vote. Let's let fans chose the winners. They know just as much, if not more than many of these writers. Fuck you, you arrogant bastards. White people deserve some credit for what they do too. Thank you, you racist bastards. The real winner is Toby Gerhart. If it's consolation Toby, we at the Perm believe you to be our Heisman winner.


  1. A valid point, but perhaps not the most contructive way to go about presenting your case. There are always groups of people out there that critique the winner, no matter who it ends up being. There was a tremedous cry from some when Tebow won, about there being a racial bias, too. Sad.
    Too many fans would skew the vote based on "favorite" team, to allow the fans to vote the winner. The team with the biggest followers or computer hackers would always win regardless of actual merit.
    Ingram was a big reason Alabama won, too. He also ran against SEC "D"'s, and not PAC10 and Notre Dame every week. Sure, non-SEC fans will say there was no difference, but there is.

  2. Ingram won because of Alabama's offensive line and because the media picked up on the fact that someone from Alabama had never won the Heisman. The PC movement in America loves to make up for things (like Alabama players being overlooked forever). It's also an impossibility that a white player not playing quarterback will ever win the Heisman ever again. There is a problem with writers casting the vote, but it would be a bigger problem if fans got to vote because certain schools would dominate (i.e. Texas, SC, Ohio St., Florida).