Jameis Winston

Winston will win the Heisman, but by how much?

17 Comments

By now, the cat’s pretty much out of the bag: Jameis Winston is going to win the Heisman Trophy this coming Saturday.

For those who like to follow the ins and outs of the Heisman, though, the question now is: What will the margin look like?  Will the Florida State freshman take home the trophy in a landslide of epic proportions or will the race be a little closer, reflecting the fact that there are six finalists in New York for the ceremony?

Let’s first throw out the idea that this race is going to be close. It won’t. The six finalists merely reflect the lack of a consensus challenger to Winston. The way the Heisman Trust decides who is named a finalist is based on the distribution of the vote totals. They always start with a minimum of three finalists. If there is not a significant drop off from the point total of the third-place finisher to that of the fourth-place finisher, then a fourth finalist is added. The same rule is applied to the gap between fourth and fifth. If they are in the same ballpark, then a fifth finalist is named. This year, there was not much of a gap between the fifth and sixth-place finishers, so we have six.

But to figure out the extent of Winston’s winning margin, one first needs to have an idea of what some past Heisman votes looked like. Here are the biggest landslides in Heisman history:

Player Year Margin
OJ Simpson 1968 1,750 points
Troy Smith 2006 1,662 points
Charlie Ward 1993 1,622 points
Desmond Howard 1991 1,574 points
Ricky Williams 1998 1,563 points
Vinny Testaverde 1986 1,541 points
Howard Cassady 1955 1,477 points
Roger Staubach 1963 1,356 points
Dick Kazmaier 1951 1,353 points
Billy Cannon 1959 1,316 points
Cam Newton 2010 1,184 points

Smith’s total might be the most relevant in this discussion since the number of voters in 2006 (924) is about the same as it is now (928), whereas in Simpson’s day there were 1,200. Smith also holds the record for highest percentage of first-place votes claimed as his 801 first-place votes were 86 percent of the total first-place votes received. Simpson’s 855 first-place votes remains the overall record, but it was from a larger pool of voters.

So can Winston approach Smith’s level of support? Or will his result look more like Cam Newton’s, whose 729 first-place votes in 2010 is fourth all-time in Heisman history ? Voters that year either voted Newton first, or left him off the ballot altogether — he was missing from 119 ballots — which is why his margin of victory is only 11th-best in Heisman history. Or perhaps Winston’s coming landslide will be impressive, but not among the top 10.

A peek at the Heisman regions might provide a clue.

There are six Heisman voting regions: The Far West, the Mid-West, the Southwest, the South, the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast. There are 145 media members in each region (with 57 former Heisman winners scattered nationally). It’s a safe assumption that Winston will win every one of these regions. But what kind of support will the other finalists get?

It makes sense that Andre Williams will finish second in the Northeast. Johnny Manziel will do well in the Southwest and South. Much of AJ McCarron’s support will come in the South, as will Tre Mason’s. Jordan Lynch should fare well in the Mid-West.

It stands to reason that the fewest first-place votes for Winston will come in the South, since there are three other candidates vying for votes who either come from or play in that region. If McCarron, Manziel and Mason combine to take away just 40 of the 145 votes in that region — a seemingly valid proposition — that automatically reduces Winston’s potential first place vote total to 887.

For Winston’s first-place vote total to drop to Newtonian range, then, he would have to lose a combined 150 or so first-place votes in the remaining five regions. Can the other five finalists average 30 first-place votes per region in the those regions, comprising 725 ballots? That’s merely an average of six first-place votes per region for each player.

I think they  will do so, especially when you consider that there remains a handful of voters who will leave Winston off their ballots due to the accusations that were made against him. When you also keep in mind that — based on recent history — around 900 ballots out of the 928 will be returned, it makes Winston’s chances of scoring an epic landslide less likely.

Will the vote be a runaway for Winston? Yes. But based on these deductions, it’s probably not going to be among the top 10 landslides in Heisman history.

Following dismissal of Art Briles, how will Baylor handle coaching decision in 2016 and beyond?

ARLINGTON, TX - JANUARY 01:  Baylor Bears head coach Art Briles looks from the sideline against the  Michigan State Spartans during the first half of the Goodyear Cotton Bowl Classic at AT&T Stadium on January 1, 2015 in Arlington, Texas.  (Photo by Sarah Glenn/Getty Images)
Photo by Sarah Glenn/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Baylor made the decision Thursday to indefinitely suspend head coach Art Briles with the intent to terminate his contract. In simpler terms, he’s fired but likely has a few legal hurdles for Baylor to clear before that is legally finalized. With the coaching decision coming in late May, it looks very likely Baylor is about to embark on a path previously traveled by Ohio State. That ended up working out pretty well for the Buckeyes, so perhaps there is a glimmer of hope for the Bears in the long run as the program looks to crawl out from underneath the dark cloud that floats above it today.

The severity of the consequences facing Ohio State in late May 2011 and the Baylor program today has no comparison, there should be some similarities to what happens next for Baylor. Jim Tresselresigned” from his post as head coach of the Buckeyes on May 30, 2011. At the time, Tressel was facing a two-game suspension for lying during an investigation regarding Ohio State players and impermissible benefits. As a result, Ohio State was faced with a late search for a new head coach with little time to spare for the 2011 college football season. Rather than get involved in an awkwardly timed coaching search, Ohio State named Luke Fickell the interim head coach for the 2011 season, while the national search could continue to lure in the biggest fish possible. That would end up being Urban Meyer, and things have worked out well in the years to follow.

A similar situation also played out at Arkansas when Bobby Petrino, although on another set of circumstances not comparable to the Baylor scandal. Petrino was fired by Arkansas earlier in the spring as well, with his removal as head coach coming on April 10, 2012 after lying about the details of his motorcycle accident and relationship with an Arkansas staff member. Arkansas managed to hire a new head coach for the 2012 season, naming John L. Smith the full-time head coach. However, Smith was let go after a 4-8 season that fall and ultimately replaced by Brett Bielema.

Given the timing of the coaching change in Waco, it would be expected the Bears will name a current member of the coaching staff their interim coach for the 2016 season, even though the findings of an external review of the university and athletics department made some strong accusations of various members of the coaching staff. But Baylor has little choice for what already is taking on the look of a potentially lost season for the Bears. Regardless, football will be played and somebody has to lead the team on the sidelines. Who that interim coach will be remains unknown, but given the information in the report it is also expected Baylor will wipe the slate clean with its next permanent head coach.

Odds are there will be no coach of the caliber of Meyer to come swoop in and restore pride in the program in short time. Baylor has a number of issues to address as a university, athletics department and a football program. The Baylor job may still be seen by coaching candidates as a better job as it once traditionally was, but any coach coming in for the Baylor job will be entering a pretty dark period of time, and that does not even account for any response the NCAA may eventually have on the situation.

Report says Baylor coaches met with sexual violence victims and impeded Title IX procedures

Oklahoma State v Baylor
Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images
4 Comments

The details coming out from the independent review of the Baylor football program are beginning to shed light on a number of concerns floating around the football program, which ultimately led to the decision to remove Art Briles as the head coach of the Bears. Among the damning allegations made by an external review from Pepper Hamilton is the information showing members of the Baylor coaching staff choosing not to report incidents of sexual violence involving football players, meeting directly with those filing complaints of sexual abuse and handled their own investigations outside of university policy to discredit the complainants and denied them the right to a fair investigation by the university.

These two paragraphs from the report put it all together in what is clearly not a good look for the Baylor program;

Baylor failed to take appropriate action to respond to reports of sexual assault and dating violence reportedly committed by football players. The choices made by football staff and athletics leadership, in some instances, posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the University. In certain instances, including reports of a sexual assault by multiple football players, athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report sexual violence and dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics. In those instances, football coaches or staff met directly with a complainant and/or a parent of a complainant and did not report the misconduct. As a result, no action was taken to support complainants, fairly and impartially evaluate the conduct under Title IX, address identified cultural concerns within the football program, or protect campus safety once aware of a potential pattern of sexual violence by multiple football players.

In addition, some football coaches and staff took improper steps in response to disclosures of sexual assault or dating violence that precluded the University from fulfilling its legal obligations. Football staff conducted their own untrained internal inquiries, outside of policy, which improperly discredited complainants and denied them the right to a fair, impartial and informed investigation, interim measures or processes promised under University policy. In some cases, internal steps gave the illusion of responsiveness to complainants but failed to provide a meaningful institutional response under Title IX. Further, because reports were not shared outside of athletics, the University missed critical opportunities to impose appropriate disciplinary action that would have removed offenders from campus and possibly precluded future acts of sexual violence against Baylor students. In some instances, the football program dismissed players for unspecified team violations and assisted them in transferring to other schools. As a result, some football coaches and staff abdicated responsibilities under Title IX and Clery; to student welfare; to the health and safety of complainants; and to Baylor’s institutional values.

The report goes on to say the Baylor football staff took it upon themselves to handle discipline internally rather than let the university take control.

“Football coaches and staff took affirmative steps to maintain internal control over discipline of players and to actively divert cases from the student conduct or criminal processes,” the report says.

The internal discipline process of the Baylor football program is not unique to Baylor, as many programs have their own internal disciplinary system within a football program, but a lengthy list of recommendations made to the university include educating coaches and staff members with reporting Title IX violations and more according to university policy, which itself will surely be revamped as a result of this report. It was also recommended the university and athletics department establish a clear disciplinary consequences for personnel who fail to follow reporting and documentation protocols.

Baylor regents confirm decision on Art Briles and outline Title IX failings

WACO, TX - OCTOBER 17:  Head coach Art Briles of the Baylor Bears looks on as the Bears take on the West Virginia Mountaineers in the second half at McLane Stadium on October 17, 2015 in Waco, Texas.  (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images)
Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images
2 Comments

“There are significant concerns about the tone and culture within Baylor’s football program as it relates to accountability for all forms of student athlete misconduct,” a statement from the Baylor Board of Regents said in a released statement Thursday afternoon, following the news head coach Art Briles had been dismissed amid controversy. No interim head coach for the Baylor football program has been named at this time.

An independent and external review of Baylor’s institutional response to Title IX and other compliance issues conducted by Pepper Hamilton revealed some key findings to support the decision to remove Briles as head coach of the Big 12 program, and puts many other aspects with the football program and athletic culture moving forward into question.

In addition to confirming the dismissal of Briles as head coach of the football program, Baylor has also removed Ken Starr from the role of president of the university effective at the end of May. Former dean and professor at Baylor David Garland will take on the role of interim president of Baylor until a more permanent replacement can be found. Baylor technically classifies Briles’ status as an indefinite suspension with the intent to terminate contract, which is likely a mere legal procedure. A number of other members of the administration and athletics department have been dismissed as well, but those names will not be named publicly.

According to a released statement from the Baylor Board of Regents, the key findings outlined were;

  • The University’s student conduct processes were wholly inadequate to consistently provide a prompt and equitable response under Title IX; Baylor failed to consistently support complainants through the provision of interim measures; and in some cases, the University failed to take action to identify and eliminate a potential hostile environment, prevent its recurrence or address its effects.

  • Actions by University administrators directly discouraged some complainants from reporting or participating in student conduct processes and in one instance constituted retaliation against a complainant for reporting sexual assault.

  • In addition to broader University failings, Pepper found specific failings within both the football program and Athletics department leadership, including a failure to identify and respond to a pattern of sexual violence by a football player and to a report of dating violence.

  • There are significant concerns about the tone and culture within Baylor’s football program as it relates to accountability for all forms of student athlete misconduct. 

  • Over the course of their review, Pepper investigated the University’s response to reports of a sexual assault involving multiple football players. The football program and Athletics department leadership failed to take appropriate action in response to these reports.

“We were horrified by the extent of these acts of sexual violence on our campus. This investigation revealed the University’s mishandling of reports in what should have been a supportive, responsive and caring environment for students,” said Richard Willis, chair of the Baylor Board of Regents. “The depth to which these acts occurred shocked and outraged us. Our students and their families deserve more, and we have committed our full attention to improving our processes, establishing accountability and ensuring appropriate actions are taken to support former, current and future students.”

“We, as the governing Board of this University, offer our apologies to the many who sought help from the University.  We are deeply sorry for the harm that survivors have endured,” said Ron Murff, chair-elect of the Baylor Board of Regents. “Baylor’s mission to educate men and women for worldwide leadership and service by integrating academic excellence and Christian commitment within a caring community remains our primary imperative. The Board has taken decisive action to ensure the University’s priorities are aligned with our unyielding commitment to that mission.”

You can read the full report of the findings of fact HERE for a more detailed look at what was discovered at Baylor.

Baylor dismisses Art Briles as Bears’ head football coach

28 Comments

On Memorial Day in 2011, Ohio State stunned the college football world by announcing the dismissal of Jim Tressel as the Buckeyes’ head coach.  Nearly five years to the day later, and with another Memorial Day fast approaching, Baylor has reportedly offered up a stunner of its own.

Under fire for their handling of allegations involving sexual assault allegedly committed by a handful of football players over the better part of a decade, Baylor announced that Art Briles is out as BU’s head football coach. The Briles dismissal comes two days after reports first began to surface that BU president Ken Starr was on the verge of being ousted as well.  Starr will become Chancellor, while Athletic director Ian McCaw has been placed on probation.

The university issued a press release announcing the decisions.

“We were horrified by the extent of these acts of sexual violence on our campus. This investigation revealed the University’s mishandling of reports in what should have been a supportive, responsive and caring environment for students,” said Richard Willis, chair of the Baylor Board of Regents. “The depth to which these acts occurred shocked and outraged us. Our students and their families deserve more, and we have committed our full attention to improving our processes, establishing accountability and ensuring appropriate actions are taken to support former, current and future students.”

“We have made these decisions, because, above all, we must safeguard our students and our campus,” said Willis. “We must set a new course to ensure the leaders of the University place a premium on responding effectively and with sensitivity to those impacted by the tragedy of interpersonal violence.”

“We, as the governing Board of this University, offer our apologies to the many who sought help from the University.  We are deeply sorry for the harm that survivors have endured,” said Ron Murff, chair-elect of the Baylor Board of Regents.

Prior to Briles’ arrival in Waco in 2008, the Bears hadn’t had a winning season 1995 (7-4) and had won 10 or more games just once (1980) in over 100 years of football.  Just in the past five years, Briles’ Bears won at least 10 games four times, including each of the past three seasons.  In the 25 years before Briles arrived, the Bears went to six bowl games; in eight years under Briles, the Bears went to six bowl games.

Overall, Briles finishes his BU career with a 65-37 record — and one gigantic stain on his once-sterling résumé.

Obviously, we’ll have more of this developing story throughout the day.