• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

2010 BP Heisman Vote

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet

if given a vote who would you vote for this year?

  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
Sort by date Sort by votes
dont kid yourself, look at some of the past winners...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Heisman_Trophy_winners

if you want an award about what it should be about, in my mind someone should step forward and create an award modeled after the hoby baker, a man classmate f scott fitzgerald marked as legendary character allenby after. a war hero and a great person whose trophy honors those characteristics. criterion:
Hobey Baker Award Criteria

1. Candidates must exhibit strength of character both on and off the ice.
2. Candidates must contribute to the integrity of the team and display outstanding skills in all phases of the game.
3. Consideration should be given to scholastic achievement and sportmanship.
4. Candidates must comply with all NCAA rules: be full time students in an accredited NCAA college or university; and complete 50% or more of the season.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Andrew Luck.

The award is for the best amateur college football player. In my mind Cam lost his amatuer status when he was shopped for cash by daddy. I felt the same way about Reggie Bush when he won his.
 
Upvote 0
the best player is cam newton. however, it doesn't matter if he wins or not. because he won't have it forever. the ncaa will take it away in a few years if he wins it. for me, the award should go to andrew luck. he's a stud with a ton of talent.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
:shake: Where is the "no touch icing" stance?
Click to expand...
college hockey has modified no touch :shake:

Icing the Puck
SECTION 27. a. General provisions. For the purpose of this rule, the center
line will divide the ice into halves. Should any player of a team, equal
or superior in numerical strength to the opposing team, shoot, bat with
the hand or stick, kick or deflect the puck from his own half of the ice,
beyond the goal line of the opposing team, play shall be stopped and
the puck faced off at the end-zone faceoff spot of the offending team. If
the puck enters the goal of the opposing team, after being legally shot,
batted with the stick or deflected, the goal shall be allowed.
b. Change of players not permitted. A team that is in violation of this rule
shall not be permitted to make any player substitutions before the next
faceoff. A team will be permitted to use its timeout for rules that do not
allow a substitution of players. The team that is prevented by rule from
substituting its players must call the timeout to be allowed to change.
c. Change-of-player exceptions. A team shall be permitted to make a player
substitution to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for an
extra attacker, to replace an injured player, or when a penalty is assessed
that affects the on-ice strength of either team.
d. Last point of contact. For the purpose of this rule, the point of last
contact with the puck by the team in possession shall be used to
determine whether icing has occurred.
e. Delayed penalty. If, during a delayed penalty, the non-offending team
ices the puck, the ensuing faceoff shall take place in the penalized team’s
defensive zone.
f. Shorthanded team near penalty expiration. When a team is shorthanded
as the result of a penalty and the penalty is about to expire, the decision
as to whether there has been an icing infraction shall be determined at
the instant the penalty expires, and if the puck is shot before the penalty
expires, icing shall not be called. The action of the penalized player
remaining in the penalty bench will not alter the ruling.
g. Judgement of first player to touch puck. For the purpose of interpretation
of this rule, icing is completed the instant the puck crosses the goal line,
unless an attacking player, who is onside at the blue line and with no
opponent between that player and the goal line and is clearly in position
to be the first player to touch the puck. Icing shall not be called in
this situation. This decision by the official shall be made no later than
the first player reaching the end zone face-off dots. If the puck enters
the goal in this situation icing shall not be called and a goal shall be
awarded.
h. Shot/deflection. When the puck is shot and rebounds from the body or
stick of an opponent in his or her own half of the ice so as to cross the
goal line of the player shooting it, icing shall not be called.
i. Batting puck—no goal. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section
concerning batting the puck in respect to the icing rule, the provisions in
Rule 6-19 apply and no goal may be scored by batting the puck with the
hand into the opponent’s goal.
j. Delayed offsides. If, while the official has signaled a slow whistle for
a clean interception under Rule 6-36 (offsides), the player intercepting
shoots or bats the puck beyond the opponent’s goal line in such a manner
as to constitute icing, the official’s delayed whistle shall end the instant
the puck crosses the blue line and icing shall be called in the usual
manner.
k. Shorthanded exception. If the puck was so shot by a player of a team
below the numerical on-ice strength of the opposing team, play shall
continue and the faceoff shall not take place. Note: In exhibition
contests, this exception shall not be in effect.
l. Directly from faceoff. If the puck is propelled directly from either of the
players while facing off, it shall not be considered a violation of this
rule.
m. Defending team able to play puck. If, in the opinion of the calling
official, a player of the opposing team except the goalkeeper is able to
play the puck before it passes the goal line, but has not done so, icing
shall not be called and play shall continue.
n. Goalkeeper leaving crease. Should the opposing goalkeeper leave the
crease and fake/feign playing the puck during a potential icing situation,
icing shall not be called and play shall continue.
Note: The purpose of this section is to enforce continuous action and the
on-ice officials should interpret and apply the rule to produce this result.
o. Puck touches defending team. If the puck touches any part of a player
of the opposing team or his skates or his stick before it reaches the goal
line, or touches the goalkeeper or his skates or his stick at any time
before crossing his goal line, it shall not be considered a violation of this
rule and play shall continue.
p. Officials’ error. If the officials err in calling an icing-the-puck infraction
(regardless of whether either team is short-handed), the puck shall be
faced off at the center ice faceoff spot unless, in the opinion of the
referee, the center ice faceoff unduly penalizes either team. (See 6-15-n.)
Click to expand...
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH12.pdf


bolded are the two important parts of the rule, italicized is the parts of the rule that create modified no touch, other exceptions as you see there apply. granted should one be surprised that no touch icing is instituted by an institution that is wildly out of control and cannot control its student athletes? i would say not at all, no surprises here, no touch icing should be seen as the epicenter and foundation of all issues with regard to the ncaa.

granted the ncaa did back away from taking away the ability for teams to ice the puck shorthanded with no call.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5364971

then again, the ncaa can't spell the word "judgment" so is it surprising to me that they would have such bade judgment as to institute no touch icing, NO!
 
Upvote 0
jimotis4heisman;1829616; said:
college hockey has modified no touch :shake:


http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH12.pdf


bolded are the two important parts of the rule, italicized is the parts of the rule that create modified no touch, other exceptions as you see there apply. granted should one be surprised that no touch icing is instituted by an institution that is wildly out of control and cannot control its student athletes? i would say not at all, no surprises here, no touch icing should be seen as the epicenter and foundation of all issues with regard to the ncaa.

granted the ncaa did back away from taking away the ability for teams to ice the puck shorthanded with no call.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5364971

then again, the ncaa can't spell the word "judgment" so is it surprising to me that they would have such bade judgment as to institute no touch icing, NO!
Click to expand...

So THAT'S what no touch icing is!! And here I thought is was when a baker somehow iced a cake without actually touching it. :p
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1829578; said:
Other - Denard Robinson
Click to expand...

I was going to pick him, too.

In many cases, the person that wins the Heisman does so in the presence of having a great supporting cast. Cam has great receivers, and o-line which make him look good.

Denard has virtually nothing to boost him. Horrible coaches, surrounded by a talentless cast. He puts his body on the line every week, running plays penned by a failure of a coach....And does a very good job at what he does. Never has more been asked by a player, from people that won't be there for him next year.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top