Og Ig

UK has beat UT five times in the past fifty years and only once in the past thirty...stfu.

Apology for saying you had Manning's yardage wrong for the UK game. I think I read that elsewhere while researching my reply. Also, it should be noted that the AP (journalist poll had Michigan number one but the Coaches Poll had Nebraska number one).

All of these save for the Gruden and Peyton was robbed stuff is a reach. Speaking of Peyton getting robbed, I hate to dig up bones SDS but you started it…There was no institutional conspiracy regarding the Manning Heisman snub. There WAS a bias. There WAS a campaign FOR Charles Woodson perpetrated by talking heads at ESPN/ABC. It was sometimes subtle (example: Sportscenter anchor’s selective language in terms of describing each player’s performance. When Tennessee defeated Tim Couch and Kentucky 59-31, ESPN chose to say that Manning “struggled” when it fact it was the defense that struggled. Manning threw for 523 yards-not the 300 yards that your article incorrectly claimed- and five touchdowns). Other times, it was obvious. Gameday became the Charles Woodson show in late November. There was a noticeable awe when the talking heads spoke of Woodson. There was less enthusiasm when Manning was mentioned. There were many arguments made against Manning by journalists (many of whom worked for ESPN/ABC). There were only works of loving prose when Woodson was mentioned. Let’s examine some of those arguments… 1) Manning couldn’t beat Florida. True, but let’s examine that statement a little more closely. First of all, Manning was 0-3 against Florida, not 0-4. Todd Helton started the game in ’94. If Manning gets that loss hung on him then Brock Oswelier is a Super Bowl winning QB. But, it is true that Manning fared poorly against UF throughout his career. The problem is that NO OTHER Heisman candidate has been held to that standard. Here are a few examples: Danny Weurfel was 2-3-1 against FSU over his career, Charles Woodson himself endured two four-loss seasons in a row prior to his magical 97 season but Manning was the one candidate that was held to the standard of his performance throughout his CAREER for one (1997) season. One might say, you can’t pin those 4 loss seasons on Woodson and they’d probably be right BUT it was fine to pin the UF losses on Manning and it was considered appropriate to reward Woodson for his team’s wins that 97 season. 2) The Heisman is not a career award. Here’s a convenient reversal of the previous argument that was made against Manning. This opinion was brought up time and time again when it was mentioned that Manning had only suffered six losses in three and a half seasons. When it was mentioned that Peyton had thrown for 89 TD’s and 11,000 yards in his career it was consistently mentioned that the Heisman was NOT a career award. Really? Then why did Ricky Williams win the Heisman in 1998 when he broke the NCAA career rushing record? Why did Ron Dayne get the Heisman for the same career accomplishment the following season in 99? Once again, what was good for others did not apply when it came to the Tennessee QB. 3) Manning lost to his main rival. True, Manning lost to the number one team in the nation, in their house (a place where they had lost only twice in the previous six seasons) during his Sr. season. So by that logic, a candidate’s team MUST be undefeated in order to win the award. Johnny Manziel lost twice in 2012. Ricky Williams lost three times (including a loss to an unranked Texas Tech team) in 1998. RGIII lost three times (including to an unranked KSU team) in his Heisman year. Marcus Marriota lost to unranked Arizona the season when he was the Heisman winning QB. I could go on and on… 4) Charles Woodson led his team to a national title that year. This is an argument brought up in years after the award was given but serves as a revisionist historian’s argument against Manning. Fact was that Manning had his team in place to play for the national title just like Woodson at the time that the award was decided (Michigan could have lost to Washington State and Tennessee could have defeated Nebraska and Manning would have won it all). So why did ESPN campaign for Woodson? Because it subconsciously had a liberal bias against Manning. Manning is/was a white man of privilege. The politically correct journalists that work for ESPN are trained to reject Peyton’s demographic. There had to be something wrong with the guy. Woodson surely overcame more. Peyton had advantages that Woodson didn’t have. The reality is that Peyton WAS a good guy who worked his tail off. In fact, he famously outworked everybody else throughout his entire career. Peyton was snubbed because ESPN openly rooted for Woodson based on their bleeding heart agendas. Lastly, Peyton played in the SEC and Woodson in the Big Ten. Shame on you, Saturday Down SOUTH?!?!