Talk:List of Heisman Trophy winners

Super Bowl Champions

Might be worth adding an additional shader for the surprisingly few Heisman winners who have gone on to win a Super Bowl. Seems approximately as relevant as who made it into the Pro Football Hall of Fame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.224.89 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is there no "% of Points Possible" for Sam Bradford in 2008?

Why is there no "% of Points Possible" for Sam Bradford in 2008? 71.57.43.59 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HeismanTrophyLogo.png

The image Image:HeismanTrophyLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

RG3

Can we get a pic of Robert Griffin III below Mark Ingram's pic since he is the first ever winner from Baylor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msuspartans15 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but the trouble is finding a public-domain photo of him (preferably w/ helmet off) Dolenath (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/Robert-Griffin-III.jpg

That's a good one ^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msuspartans15 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it a free image or is it copyrighted? If it's free (which it probably isn't), we can add it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I got it from google images. How do I find uncopyrighted images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msuspartans15 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is most likely copyrighted. The best way to find free images is to take them yourself, which is pretty difficult, or to request the holder of the copyright to release the image into the public domain. Because of Wikipedia's policy on copyright, very few high-quality images are available for use, unfortunately. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also you can look for photos taken by government employees, which are free due to being public property. Dolenath (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What about this image: http://www.heisman.com/winners/r-griffin11.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.196.145 (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly copyrighted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Great Heisman State

This was removed from the article. I'm not sure how notable it is but thought it might be worth discussing... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC) The state of California has rendered the most Heisman Trophy winners. 14 winners were both born and played high school football in the Golden State.

It is a pretty impressive statistic to note that 1 in 5 of all Heisman winners were Californians especially given the fact that there was only one winner from the state in the first 30 years of the award.

1946 Glenn Davis, 1964 John Huarte, 1965 Mike Garrett, 1967 Gary Beban, 1968 O.J. Simpson, 1970 Jim Plunkett, 1979 Charles White, 1981 Marcus Allen, 1992 Gino Torretta, 1994 Rashaan Salaam, 1998 Ricky Williams, 2002 Carson Palmer, 2004 Matt Leinart, 2005 Reggie Bush

Not real sure how it's not noteworthy enough to be included in the main article given you put this factoid out there:

"Quarterback Sam Bradford of Oklahoma is the 2008 winner. When combined with Blake Griffin's John Wooden Award in 2008–09, Oklahoma became the second school to have a top winner in both basketball and football in the same school year, after UCLA in 1967 with Gary Beban and Lew Alcindor, later to be known as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar."

Given you believe that's a relevant point how is the State with the most winners not? I'll respect that you began the page and not keep ping ponging this point back and forth; but I believe most readers would find that fact interesting. Especially since several of the winners were born in CA but played college ball in other states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.95.179 (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 2005 Winner

Someone edited the list to remove Reggie Bush as the winner of the Heisman Trophy in 2005. As of the date of this post, Reggie Bush is still the winner of the trophy in 2005. While the NCAA's sanctions of USC may lead to an eventual revocation of Bush's award, it has not yet happened. Until the Heisman Trophy Trust decides to investigate, revoke Bush's award, and retroactively confer it upon someone else, he should still be included on the list as the 2005 winner. I have undone the edit, and think that it should remain as it is unless and until Reggie Bush is officially stripped of the award. http://www.heisman.com/index.php/heismanWinners#winners-year.TJShultz (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

USC has announced its intentions to return the trophy to the Heisman Trophy Trust. http://usc.ocregister.com/2010/07/20/usc-to-send-back-bushs-heisman-hire-vp-for-compliance/42955/ A footnote stating his position as the first player to ever have the award returned would be appropriate; no other player has been in his position. Equally beneficial would be a subsection on Heisman Trophy controversies mentioning USC's choice, in the wake of the present scandal, to return the trophy to the trust. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/USC-will-return-Bush-s-05-Heisman-to-sender;_ylt=AvqokUamXYhjS5Myzs_3T3ith9EF?urn=ncaaf,257191 FleeingHomework (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy solution -- go with what Heisman.com lists. What recipients do with their physical copies is a non-sequitor. Burn them, sell them, return them, give them away--it's not relevant. As an encyclopedia, our role is to provide material facts, not normative judgments about what we want to be the case or ought to be the case.Obamafan70 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Obamafan is correct. In addition, Bush's Heisman has not been stripped yet[1][2]; the Heisman Trust is still to decide on that issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a footnote explaining the situation. Is that satisfactory? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I just clarified one minor detail that the vacation of wins applies only to games in which Bush participated after (allegedly) receiving improper gifts. The vacation of wins does not apply to wins before the (alleged) improper gifts in which he played. I only use the word "alleged" in my writing, since we don't really have any proof. The NCAA doesn't have any legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt (I suppose technically we could still be sued for not using the alleged word). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamafan70 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reggie has been officially removed as a winner as announced about an hour ago by the Heisman Trust (current 3:30 cst, Sept. 15, 2010) and there will be no winner in 2005 officially. Thus he should be removed from the list as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.126.208 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The same edit is also being done to the Matt Leinart and the Troy Smith pages. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who adds Reggie Bush to the list is disrespectful to the Heisman Trophy and the New York Athletic Club. He is not listed on Heisman.com with the other players. -The guy who keeps fixing the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Reggie Bush Part 2

As per the September 14, 2010 announcement, Bush and USC have both returned their copies of the Heisman trophy. However, the Trust has to yet to decide on what action to take. As a result, Bush still officially is the 2005 Heisman winner. http://www.heisman.com/winners/r-bush05.php If you don't believe me, go to the official website. As I've said again, again, and again, what players do with their individual awards is a non-sequitor. Obamafan70 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, just a general comment -- and this is possibly against WP rules, since this is not a forum. It's possible that Bush was even cowed into forfeiting his trophy precisely for political reasons. The Trust met today, and I think it's entirely plausible he was contacted by legal emissaries (half of the Trust is legally credentialed) that he must forfeit the trophy. This then prevents the Trust from having to make a decision which is possibly a no-win situation for it. But again, no formal decision has been made, and Bush is listed on the official website -- thanks for opining, DaBomb87. Obamafan70 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• IMO, the list should shows forfeited on the 2005 row. Right now, the list and the navbox are showing different things and they should be consistent.—Chris!_c/t 23:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I've corrected it to make it consistent with Heisman.com which is where we get our FACTS in this case. Thank you, Obamafan70 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, no matter what the outcome and decision about the award by the trust, Bush should always be kept here in the list the award. Footnotes about returning it or it being forfeited are completely appropriate. he won the award, that will never change no matter what is rescinded etc, maybe someone else is listed in history as the "winner" but to completely erase Bush just ridiculous and disingenuous to truly being a resource and reference. Telling the whole true story instead of just the story the individual wants to tell should be the goal. 12.51.45.210 (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so strident -- but why do we keep opining around in circles??? There is a perfectly good list on Heisman.com, and it's our job to report that here (i.e. report FACTS). End of story.....right?.....right? There goes the featured status I was trying to save. Obamafan70 (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, there IS precedence. It's on the National Invitation Tournament article - three different teams had to vacate or forfeit their titles. They are still listed in the table. --Smashville^talk 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Vacated

Any mention of Bush winning the Heisman trophy should be accompanied by a parenthetical (vacated). Doing so will reflect Bush as the historical winner of the Heisman trophy vote and also reflect the current status of the trophy. The Heisman trust has stated themselves that there is to be no winner (including runner-up Vince Young) of the 2005 trophy.--Belowenter —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

We need to discuss this further in light of the announcement from Heisman Trust that the 2005 winner is vacated.—Chris!_c/t 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Heisman.com no longer lists a 2005 recipient for the award. The Heisman trust has announced that the award is officially vacated. I think that entirely closes the book on whether Bush should remain listed-- he is no longer the winner of the award, and thus, should not be listed as such on this page. The notes for that entry explain the situation, and I might suggest a new section added to briefly explain the vacation of the award. But I think at this point it should be entirely uncontroversial to remove Bush from this page, and I will do so now. Prezuiwf (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you been reading this page? It's entirely uncontroversial? A number of editors have been on here removing vandalism for the past few months, and the article was nominated for having its featured status to be removed because of it. The decision (itself) was an ad hoc qualifier ex post facto. You even suggested yourself that there should be a new section explaining the vacation of the award. So, why didn't you do it? By the way, the proper usage should be "vacated" not "none". The award was conferred, then it was vacated. Notice the difference? Obamafan70 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simple, Bush's name should appear in the Winner's list with a vacated notation. Historically, he won the trophy, the Heisman Trust has no say whatsover in what happened historically. They voted in 2005, he won, that actually happened. However, we need to note the vacation of the award. StayinAnon (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be Bush (vacated) with a notation.Obamafan70 (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "none" Not him. It was my bad. However, none was more on point than your suggestion of leaving Bush on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.33.82 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I did it in the {{Heisman Trophy}} template, listing it as Vacated and then in the Below parameter, list details of why it was vacated and that Reggie Bush was originally the winner. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notation, but we need to keep it in the table so that people who need to know the vote totals, who won, etc. still have the relevant and historically accurate info.StayinAnon (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Obamafan70-- This should NOT be controversial anymore. The original decision was that Heisman.com is the official source for the info. Heisman.com now lists no winner whatsoever for the award. Bush has given the award back, as has USC, so all relevant parties involved agree that there was no winner that season. Obviously the page requires a notation indicating that Bush originally received the award, but as far as the official record goes, he did NOT win it. Think about it this way: if at the Oscars, a presenter announced that the best actor winner was Leonardo DiCaprio, and then 5 minutes later a member of the Academy rushed the stage and announced that there had been a tabulation error and that Jack Nicholson was the rightful recepient, and DiCaprio gave his award over to Nicholson, the Wikipedia page would obviously say that the winner was Nicholson, with a notation that DiCaprio was originally named as the winner in error. This is virtually the same exact thing, except replace Jack Nicholson with "nobody," and stretch the length of time from 5 minutes to 5 years. Everyone involved agrees that it was an error to name Bush (as he did not meet the Heisman's criteria of being NCAA eligible), and thus after the fact they gave the award to its rightful recipient, who in this case everyone agrees is no one. So even though Bush was originally given the trophy, he is not, nor has he ever been, the actual winner-- it just took 5 years for everyone to realize that fact. So why would the page even give him the benefit of listing his name alongside the winners instead of saying "Vacated" with a notation stating that he was originally given the award but later stripped of it? This is an official list of recepients; as such, it serves the historical purpose of the article to put a notation detailing the controversy that ocurred, but there is no reason to actually put Bush's name on the list itself, as he was not the winner. Prezuiwf (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

One major problem with your "comparison", they aren't equal and they aren't the same. An error in announcement is not the same as vacating an award 5 and a half years later because of different circumstances. Bush won, he was awarded the trophy and held it for 5 years and then it was vacated, that doesn't change the fact that he did originally win the award, no one else won it or was announced by accident or anything else even remotely close. He should be listed in the list, with a highlighted or notation that the award was vacated. This doesn't even get into the whole point about the NCAA rules being crap in the first place, but that's a different story. 208.54.4.27 (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with previous (anonymous) user -- a fundamentally spurious analogy by Prezuiwf. Also, it's not the case that "everyone involved agrees that it was an error to name Bush in the first place".....this is pretty clearly begging the question (logic is unfortunately not taught at an early enough age...or not at all, I fear). And what -- my panache-inclined friend -- would you do if 5 years from now the NCAA decides to rescind its (contentiously arbitrary) decision and his title is officially re-acknowledged by the Trust?? Presumably, one would want to note the original conferment, 5 year vacation, and subsequent re-acknowledgement (as well as all relevant voting tallies if applicable).Obamafan70 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How come the Heisman Trophy list of winners on their website doesn't list anything? Your Oscar analogy isn't correct either. If Jack Nicholson is the rightful winner, there is no reason to put DiCaprio's name on the website, considering he wasn't the winner. Smartestmanonearth (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI -- analogies aren't 'correct', per se. They are cogent...or perhaps spurious, etc.. unless, of course, you are making a normative claim (i.e. that analogy is morally questionable such as a comparison to Nazism or an argumentum ad hitlerum)....sorry that's the professor in me coming out....To answer your question, the website doesn't list anything because Bush's trophy was vacated. So what exactly is your objection to the status quo WP article? Obamafan70 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep listing Reggie Bush? The New York Athletic Club does not list his name with the other winners. It is disrespectful to the Heisman award and the others on the list to keep including him on the list with a simple footnote. -The guy who keeps fixing the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Balloting is selective

I deleted this non-fact from the text. I have no idea what that even means -- balloting is selective -- there is an elaborate screening process to determine voters?? Even if we knew what "selective" meant in this case, it's almost certainly untrue. The voting is open to the public. There is no such thing as a selective balloting process when it's open to the public (yes, it's only one vote, but that's a non-sequitor). Also, since there are 900-something voters -- I would hardly call that selective. Again, just saving this article from losing its featured status, which it is desperately close to doing at this point. Obamafan70 (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way is this article close to losing its featured status? You shouldn't make strident statements like that without backing it up with reasoning or evidence. —Lowellian (reply) 08:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Stability concerns, primarily. If there are WP:V problems, then obviously that would increase the chance of delisting as well. See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Heisman Trophy winners/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't make strident statements like that without backing it up with reasoning or evidence. I fail to see how pointing out non-facts is harsh or shrill in any way. As for the indictment of not providing sufficient evidence, I will just agree with DaDomb 87 and refer you to this talk page's history and WP:FACR. Though I certainly have no objection to doing so, others might get tired of me repeating myself. Happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.99.96.113, 12 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Boise State is listed as having an Heisman Award winner. That is incorrect. Please revert to UCLA.

208.99.96.113 (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I can't find this "Boise State" you are referring to. Can you please be more specific about it? Stickee (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Count

The introduction says it has been awarded 75 times, including Bush. However the table shows 76 awards, also including Bush, one for each year 1935-2010. Am I missing something? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Nobody had updated the intro after Cam Newton won last month. Thanks to bringing that up. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The count by school is messed up. Has Auburn with 9 which is not true, and Virginia with 8, and no player from Virginia has ever won the Heismam. Diddyeinstein (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)diddyeinstein.

List now shows North Carolina and Duke each with seven Heisman winners (with Notre Dame and Ohio State omitted as having any winners).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Csfreret (talk • contribs)

Fixed:—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hometown added to List column

I was having a debate with some friends regarding the hometowns of various Heisman winners. Would anyone have a problem if I add a hometown column to the table? It would go between School and Position. All information regarding hometowns would be pulled from each respective Heisman trophy winner's Wikipedia page. DavePretty (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. Hometown is too vague a concept Dolenath (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Home town sounds great it would give people in theirs community something to brag about 173.185.72.124 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

i like the hometown idea. if winston wins, that will be two players from bessemer, ala. (bo jackson) and the third from the birmingham area (pat sullivan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.79.10 (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Which professional football team has had the most Heisman Trophy winners on their roster? Not at a time, because I believe that was Oakland.

Which professional football team has had the most Heisman Trophy winners on their roster throughout their franchise history? Not at the same time, because I believe that was Oakland. When they had Bo Jackson, Jim Plunkett,Marcus Allen and Tim Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.195.165 (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Change Points to Percentage

The inclusion of "Points" on the table is meaningless, as the number of voters (and therefore points) change from year to year. The reason OJ Simpson had the highest is because that year they had one of the largest number of voters ever. In modern times they have much smaller numbers. For example, if Robert Griffin III had received 100% of the vote this year, he still wouldn't have had enough to beat OJ Simpson's point total.

Therefore, I strongly urge a change to percentage of maximum votes possible, which will make much more sense for comparing the different winners. Read this site for more info (it also has the %s already calculated): http://www.stiffarmtrophy.com/2011/12/08/plea-sportswriters-statistical-accuracy/ Dolenath (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No response after a week, so I just went ahead and included "% of Points Possible" as a new column, but I didn't remove the Points column, since the percentages are missing from a couple years in the 40s. Dolenath (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading columns for points and % points possible. Listing the top five in balloting results, both votes and points, would be more useful

In the 2012 balloting, Johnny Manziel outpointed Manti T'eo 2,029 to 1,706.

I don't understand how Manziel received 72.88% of points possible.

Manti T'eo received 321 first place votes, the most by any defensive player and second most for any runner-up.

In 2012, Manti T'eo was named on 84% of the votes; however, in the 2011 balloting, Robert Griffin III was only named on 80% and second place Andrew Luck 75%.

Insted of only listing the winner, please list the top five in the balloting.

Other comparisons with the balloting results are interesting.

More balloting results should be included on this page.

See Lewis, Fred. T'eo so close; Manziel takes Heisman Honolulu Star Advertiser, December 9, 2012, updated 0130; retrieved December 9, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.190.54 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The 72.88% of points possible for Manziel is correct. Seeing that Manziel received 72.88% of the possible points while Manti Teo received 61.28% of the possible points looks wrong, but the way the points are awarded makes this possible. The points are awarded by giving 3 points for each first place vote, 2 points for each second place vote, and 1 point for each third place vote. Thus, each ballot awards a total of 6 points to three different players, creating a situation where the maximum points possible by a single player is only half of the total points awarded. This means that if you add up each player's percentage of the maximum points possible, you'll get a total that adds up to 200% instead of 100%. There were 928 voters in 2012 (870 media, 57 living winners not including Reggie Bush, plus 1 fan poll vote) so the maximum number of points is 2784 points (3 points x 928 ballots). Manziel received 2029 points, which is 72.88% of the maximum (2029/2784 = 72.88%). Dapado (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

List of winners

Shouldn't the list contain a column indicating that the winner was a freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior? What do others think? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this an error?

The article states that Frank Sinkwich earned 99.69% of the total votes in 1942. However, the source cited for the column entitled "% of Points Possible" states: "Highest Heisman vote total of all time: Reggie Bush, 91.8% of points possible, 2005". (This is the cited source: [3].) So, is this an error, a typo, or some sort of unique situation that needs clarification? I have no idea, so I cannot make the appropriate edit, if one is necessary. Anyone? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article states (in the footnote): "Reggie Bush was the original winner of the Heisman for the 2005 season with 2,541 points and 91.77% of the points possible. His title and trophy were later removed after Bush was found to have received improper benefits as an amateur." However, in the Reggie Bush article, it states: "Bush voluntarily forfeited his Heisman Trophy." So, did the awarding body revoke the Heisman from Bush, or did Bush voluntarily relinquish it? Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

vandalism.

Main paragraph, after DAC. "Ben from Richmond won it in 2013." Sorry Ben, you did not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.78.67 (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

2005

so what happen that year no one win it ? Skippypeanuts (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the third paragraph in the lead.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Heisman Trophy winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080205161035/http://www.encyclopedia.com:80/doc/1G1-15962158.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15962158.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Heisman Trophy winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205163308/http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/100610/espn_uscpenalties.pdf to http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/100610/espn_uscpenalties.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5576729
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69yAy4nuI?url=http://www.heisman.com/history/balloting.php to http://www.heisman.com/history/balloting.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Heisman Trophy winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103181703/http://www.heisman.com/history/heisman_trophy.php to http://www.heisman.com/history/heisman_trophy.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104142529/http://www.heisman.com/winners/a-griffin74.php to http://www.heisman.com/winners/a-griffin74.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't the Army winners listed?

It skips from 44 to 47, no mention of Davis or Blanchard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzanof (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

An attempt to edit 1944 Les Horvath resulted in the rmvl of Blanchard and Davis. I reverted the unnecessary Horvath edit, and Blanchard and Davis are now back. Sensei48 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Images in the table

I think we should remove the images from the table. This is the only featured list I know of that has this, and it's probably for good reason; they're cumbersome, stretching the table way longer than it ought to be, and they really don't add much value. A few of them can be placed on the side with captions like on the AP NFL MVP and MLB MVP pages, etc. Giants2008 thoughts? Lizard (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have seen some FLs with photos in tables (this and this are recent examples), but wouldn't object if you took them out here, as I put photos on the sides myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

See, it makes sense for the "sexiest women" list because the physical appearance of the subjects is hugely relevant. But I'll wait for further input before doing anything with this list. Lizard (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the images. Case in point, why is Kyler Murray shown wearing a Texas A&M jersey? He was long gone from there when he won his Heisman. (003FX (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kyler Murray Big 12 Conference Championship game.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

The photo of Kyler Murray needs to be in an OU Sooner uniform. He didn't win the Heisman while playing at Texas A&M! CPSooner580 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have a good quality, non-copyrighted image of him in an Oklahoma uniform to add, feel free to do so. Otherwise, we are limited with images we are able to use here without violating copyright law. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Rashaan Salaam photo

I see where there's a photograph of Rashaan Salaam on his article, but not on this list-article. I'm bad at understanding photography copyrights, is his CU-Boulder photo unable to be used on here? 71.56.244.35 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That image is copyrighted and non-free-use. It may be used to visualize the subject only on their article. As the Heisman list is not an article only about the subject, it does not fall under the "fair use" permission meaning it may not be used.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

New image of the athlete is needed, as none is provided in the article as of today. Also, a picture of Eric Crouch is also missing. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What happened to the images.

Can someone tell me why we removed the images, and if so should we add them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwaggyJack (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind the images were probably removed my someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwaggyJack (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are they statues.

Why is Billy Vessels, Dick Kazmaier, Ernie Davis, and George Rogers photos are a just statues of them should we change this or not?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwaggyJack (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dick Kazmaier Jr. Statue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Total by school ordering after Caleb Williams

This article for years had "7" for the three schools that had 7, and then USC with "6 (plus one vacated)". General concensus here seems to be to show USC's total without Reggie Bush, but to keep him in the article in general and notate USC with a vacated total. If we're keeping the "(plus one vacated)" and USC in a different box from the other 7, it doesn't make much sense to sort alphabetically, because what if USC started with a letter in between the other schools? Example for why this sorting looks silly:

School	Trophies
Notre Dame	7
Ohio State	7
nUSC 7(plus 1 vacated)
Oklahoma
Alabama	4

Showing USC as 8 (including one vacated) would be against the consensus both here and in CFB related pages in general. But so would just "7". So I think the only really consistent way to do this is treat "7" and "7 (plus one vacated)" as separate boxes, at which point, 7* most arguably should be shown above 7. Embowaf (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That still doesn't negate the internal logic of maintaining alphabetical order. The schools listed under numbers 3, 2, and 1 are listed alphabetically. There is no compelling argument here for making schools with 7 awards listed in any way differently from those, even if an internal note remains about the 2005 vacating of Bush's award. The actual number of trophies awarded to USC is 7. Vacating 2005 means that no award exists for that year, and NCAA.com skips 2005 without explanation.

The current edit lists the correct numbers and deals with the USC and Caleb Williams aspects in the introductory text of the section, which is where it belongs, not by gumming up the list that appears immediately below the explanation.

Sensei48 (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we remove draft spot from the graph on winners considering it’s irrelevant?

Yes. Okay good talk. 2603:6010:A140:7D:68A4:F08F:EC40:2AAC (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Retroactive selections

It doesn't make any sense why this section is included, as it's based on one person's opinion and not on fact. As such, it should be removed. Alielmi1207 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• It was published by the National Football Foundation, the operator of the College Football Hall of Fame. That gives it a good deal of gravitas. Cbl62 (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)