Excerpt from Those Guys Have All the Fun: Chris Fowler on Woodson & Manning
As we've been working through our Greatest Vol Villains bracket and featured Charles Woodson in a quarterfinal matchup today, an oral history of ESPN - Those Guys Have All the Fun - was just released by James Andrew Miller & Tom Shales. This thing is a 745 page beast that I'm very much looking forward to reading. In light of today's matchup and some of the conversation it's generated around the college football blogging world, it's interesting to note that Chris Fowler offers a few comments on the 1997 Heisman race in the book:
In the weeks leading up to the Heisman announcement, when we talked about it on GameDay, I would just point out that if you read the tea leaves, it was not going to be a slam dunk for Peyton Manning, which you were hearing a lot ahead of time. People assumed Peyton Manning had the Heisman won. All I said was that this wasn't a done deal. I wasn't trying to hype Charles Woodson or the show for that matter. The show was going to rate what it rated. I was just doing my job. But there were people at Tennessee who were frustrated and took it very personally. ESPN didn't have the SEC games at that point, didn't have as much of a relationship with the conference as we do now. We were seen as "the Big Ten Conference" by some people in that part of the world, and we were perceived to have an agenda...
...Immediately, the story wasn't that Charles Woodson won the Heisman; the story was that Peyton Manning didn't win it. And I was the guy that was seen giving it to Woodson. I got a lot of negative feedback. The phone was rining off the hook that night. Then I got a lot of letters, and a lot of other hateful stuff directed at me personally. I was across a chain-link fence at the Orange Bowl from Tennessee fans a month later, and it was really, really edgy; very difficult and uncomfortable. And it stayed that way for a while. We didn't go back to Knoxville with GameDay for a few years, and when we did, we paid attention to security.
By the way, I had voted for Peyton Manning to win the Heisman Trophy.
Fowler's comments capture the moment really well, and I've never heard him say who he voted for that year. My personal opinion is that the ire the majority of UT fans showed Fowler generally came after he made his "trailer park" comments, which were no doubt a reaction to what a minority of UT fans had said to Fowler personally.
The mood then and his comments on it now are both a fascinating case study in perception, reality, and who we're always quick to blame...right or wrong.
What made Fowler's later comments even worse was ESPN's refusal to come back to Knoxville...which was then made exponentially worse because the Vols won the National Championship the very next year. Not only did College GameDay duck the Tennessee-Florida game in September, it also skipped the undefeated November showdown between #1 Tennessee and Arkansas, which was by far the most important game of the season at that point. We knew why they were doing it at the time, and Fowler's comments offer validation to that belief.
I was in Tempe when the Vols won the National Championship, where ESPN had no choice but to be surrounded by Tennessee fans. I watched joyous and/or drunk Tennessee fans launch beverages at the GameDay set following UT's win over Florida State. They had a reason to feel uncomfortable.
I was a freshman at UT the next year, when GameDay finally came back to Knoxville in November when the Vols faced Notre Dame. And like many college students at football schools, having GameDay on your campus becomes one of the signature moments of your time at that university. We got up early, got on TV, then stayed after the show was over. To their credit, Fowler, Corso, and Herbstreit all came down and signed autographs. I shook Chris Fowler's hand and told him we were glad to see them. He said that he was glad to be here and that Knoxville was one of his favorite places to come. I have no idea if he was just giving the safe company line or if he meant it, but I have always believed him. Their autographs are still in the basement of my parents' house in Knoxville.
Chris Fowler was never personally to blame for what happened with Manning and Woodson, but it remains true that the media impacted the 1997 Heisman race like none before it...and in 1997, the media truly was ESPN. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, they created a story with Woodson in a Heisman race that didn't have one by October, because Manning was rightfully running away with it. We're plenty biased here, but there are also plenty of non-UT fans who will tell you the wrong man won in 1997.
Stuff like that will bring out the worst in the worst of us, and anyone who took it out on Fowler personally was wrong to do so. For whatever my opinion is worth, I really enjoy Fowler's work and haven't had a problem doing so since I shook his hand a dozen years ago. And I think many Tennessee fans would agree.
But I also think it's true that no one had more power over the tea leaves than ESPN. Foregone conclusions are not good stories, and it's ESPN's job to tell good stories. Even if there was no malicious intent - even if it was just, "We have to talk about the Heisman race, who else can we talk about?" - I remain a believer that they uniquely and significantly impacted the race and did so in Woodson's favor.
But whatever side of the Heisman argument you fall on, the '97 race remains an important moment for the way media can impact sport, and the way fans will perceive that impact.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Except that the Heisman Trophy isn't sport
because sport is what happens between the lines. The Heisman Trophy is an award voted on by the media. It hardly seems a problem if the media impacted it.
I think the media at-large got bored
If a majority of voters were arguing for Woodson back in October it would’ve been one thing. But ESPN, as the most powerful institution of the media at the time, changed the narrative of the race. Woodson was just the flavor of the week before then.
by Will Shelton on May 24, 2011 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions
My Take
Tennessee fans were (and still are) particularly incensed because of several other factors.
Tennessee is an all-time Top 10 Program (Currently #9, I don’t know where exactly we were in 1997). Here is a list of the rest of the Top 10, with number of Heisman winners in parentheses.
1. Michigan (3)
2. Texas (2)
3. Notre Dame (7)
4. Nebraska (3)
5. Ohio State (7)
6. Penn State (1)
7. Oklahoma (5)
8. Alabama (1)
9. Tennessee (0)
10. USC (6)
Granted, Alabama just won their first two years ago, but 7 of the 10 have not only won Heismans, they’ve won multiples. 35 trophies for 10 teams, and a goose-egg for our beloved Vols.
We also have a history of dubious outcomes in Heisman voting, and I’m guessing that many Vol fans of past generations would argue that Johnny Majors was robbed just as badly as Manning. This was the latest installment of media favoritism of a Midwestern team, and done so in a very public manner.
Of course, I don’t wish violence upon Fowler or any of those guys (when I get back to ‘Murika, I’ll be watching every Saturday morning), but Vol fans have a very valid beef with Heisman voters, particularly those from 1997. Having a winning tradition with no hardware to show for it is frustrating, and I think even having one Heisman winner would have validated the program, in the minds of its fans, as truly belonging among the elite in college football.
Dooley-isms Archiving the Genius.
The 1997 Heisman vote completely invalidated the Heisman Trophy for a lot of Vol fans
Myself included. It was when I realized that there are no real criteria for the trophy. It is a moving target that is awarded to whomever the media decide to fall in love with in late November/early December. Some years it is the award given to the “best player in college football,” some years it goes to the QB of the best team in college football, some years it goes to someone who had a great 4 years and needs to be rewarded for such a great career, some years it goes to the “most exciting player in college football,” some years it goes to the best RB in college football, some years it needs to go to a defensive player because it’s never been done before, etc.
1997 is not when it became that way – it has always been that way – but that vote was when Vol fans really learned the lesson. And I haven’t given a damn about who won the Heisman since then. I’ve watched some (maybe even most) of the ceremonies since then, but I’ve lost the ability to care about whether they “get it right” because there’s no such thing as right or wrong when it comes to something like that.
Lou Brock loves Lamp.
by birdjam on May 25, 2011 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
agreed
I remember thinking Ron Dayne should’ve won in ’98, but not in ’99, when they gave him the career achievement Heisman.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Go Bolts! Out West, go Preds! Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on May 25, 2011 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
LT should have won
but he didn’t because he went to TCU.
The unwritten rules of the award are asinine
Rules? There aren't rules, written or unwritten.
That’s what’s asinine. If there were rules, it would make sense from year to year.
Lou Brock loves Lamp.
If they took "most valuable" literally
Randy Moss has a pretty good case out of those ’97 finalists
by Will Shelton on May 25, 2011 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I would have voted for Randy Moss for Heisman in 1997
I’ve been saying this for years (since 1997, I guess).
...just apologize for not thanking me.
along the lines of
the best player on the best team. if you’re not at a big time school or a team that’s in the top 10 you have zero chance
Ron Dayne won a Hiesman???
Per my other post, who knew, who cares.
Don't care, don't watch
I haven’t watched a Hiesman ceremony in years and could care less about it. Back in the seventies and early eighties I could rattle off at least 10 or more of the prior winners. Not anymore. About the only thing I’m aware of lately is that Reggie Bush had his taken away and Tebow, for the good of all mankind, didn’t win a second one. Other than that, I’m happily clueless about the silly Hiesman popularity contest.
So Chris Fowler explains that...
… now how does he explain his blatant bashing of the BCS? He’s a very big reason that so many people mindlessly follow the idea of a playoff. The fact that he pumped that “Death to the BCS” book on College Gameday is reason enough to get the man suspended.
"People ask what it's like to be a black coach. I've never been any other kind." - Ron Prince
"mindlessly follow the idea of a playoff"
What?
Official MCM Hater!
A picture of Jake Locker in a Titan jersey?
"My iPod background now. Replaced the girlfriend. She won't be mad."
FWIW, I like the basic idea behind the BCS
i.e., the idea of circumventing the NCAA.
I think if you take the current BCS and simply change it to a plus-one (i.e. a 4-team playoff), then you’re left with an almost perfect system.
But I would take the BCS — even in its under-inclusive present state — over the 16 team playoff proposed by Dan Wetzel, which is an abjectly horrendous proposal on multiple multiple levels. A playoff with every conference champion? Seriously? Even the sun belt? Even the MAC? That’s a good idea, how?
...just apologize for not thanking me.
I wouldn't piss on Chris Fowler if he was on fire.
He knows what he did, I don’t care whom he claims he voted for. “Trailer trash”? Really?
AND since 2008 or so…there are two Big Ten Networks. One official, and one ESPN.
by GhostDance on May 25, 2011 4:07 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
your timeline is off
the famous triumph of the mighty Michigan Wolverines on September 1st, 2007, was on the Big Ten Network.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Go Bolts! Out West, go Preds! Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on May 25, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not begrudging Vols a good conspiracy. I have my own; most are less rational.
But exactly what justifies the argument for a “stolen” Heisman? (Arguments in order of strength, if true.)
Peyton Manning didn’t have an unassailable statistical lead even before you consider the obvious skew a purely statistical argument would give a quarterback against a cornerback. The intangibles seem to favor Woodson, most especially the “defining moment” category as explained on Dr. Saturday. The usual after-the-bowl argument of a jilted fan base isn’t there. The appeal to the NFL career, the last refuge of scoundrels, doesn’t really apply against a 7-time Pro Bowler. And honestly, the “media bias” complaint rings a little hollow when the supposed victim fits the profile (best quarterback among contending teams) of nine of the thirteen winners hence.
Johnny Majors, though? That’s a theft.
by This Original Guy on May 25, 2011 5:37 PM EDT reply actions
Majors is much worse, agreed there
I’d agree that Woodson had the nebulous “intangibles” advantage, and that’s part of the reason he won. One of the problems I have with Dr. Saturday’s thoughts, along with the thoughts of many that have become cloudy over time, is the notion that Manning “tanked” the Florida game. I mentioned this in the other post on Woodson, but Manning threw for 353 and 3 touchdowns against the Gators. The pick six hurts, obviously, but the Vols lost to Florida because freshman Jamal Lewis was still on the bench and thus UT had zero run game; the Gators just sent everybody and sacked Manning five times.
Don’t get me wrong: the ‘96 loss in Peyton’s junior year is completely on his shoulders with four interceptions. But just because great Florida teams beat great Tennessee teams three years in a row doesn’t mean Manning “choked” – he was spectacular against Florida in ’95, but the Vols gave up 62 points. And he was plenty good as a senior, but not good enough.
And here’s what bothers me about the defining moment thing. The same Saturday Woodson was playing against Ohio State, Manning faced Tim Couch in a duel of the next two number one draft picks. And Peyton destroyed him with with 523 yards and 5 TDs. It’s still the school record for single game passing at UT. Granted, Kentucky wasn’t Ohio State, but it was still a marquee moment and Manning was brilliant…
But it was like, “Oh yeah, he threw for 500 yards and 5 TDs again, big deal. Look at this guy, he ran a punt back!” Manning’s greatness had become familiar. Woodson was something different, and to me that’s the biggest reason he won. I think the profile you’re describing was too boring for voters who had just seen Danny Wuerffel do it the year before.
Charles Woodson is a great football player, that’s never been in question. But his DB stats weren’t even that impressive – statistically, Eric Berry was better in 2008 than Woodson was in 1997. Both Woodson and Manning have had great NFL careers, and I don’t think either should be used to make the argument about the Heisman.
Tennessee fans are always going to think Manning was better, Michigan fans will always think Woodson was better. I just think the race was unique – familiarity bred contempt with Manning, and Woodson was a flashy alternative that the media gravitated to.
by Will Shelton on May 25, 2011 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

by 
























