242 Ballots: Ingram leads by projected 3.2% and in the hard count

It looks like Mike Mark Ingram is starting to pull away from Toby Gerhart and Ndamukong Suh. At 242 ballots counted, he's now up to 43.8%, more than a full point higher than he was at 226 ballots. Gerhart and Suh are locked in a close race for second - Gerhart 40.6%, Suh 39.2%.

In addition, there's been a lot of attention paid to the hard count of votes that we've tracked down. Some folks have even reported in the last couple of days that Suh is "leading in the count", utterly ignoring the regional adjustments made in our projection. (You can't just look at the hard count, since our count has 54 votes in the Southwest and only 18 votes in the Northeast - and we know that actual voter turnout will be roughly the same.)

Nonetheless, for the first time, our hard count now shows Mark Ingram leading - with 325 points. He and Gerhart continue to trail Suh in the number of first-place votes, while Suh trails the two of them in the number of ballots on which he appears.

(Argh, sorry Mark! That's what you get when you're trying to write a post while talking on the phone to your pal Mike.)

Kari Chisholm | December 10, 2009 | Comment on This Post (112 so far)
Permalink: 242 Ballots: Ingram leads by projected 3.2% and in the hard count



to "tdisdumb"

I like the following quote of yours:

"Alabama is TO dumb to win."

That right there is called irony. You're calling others dumb when you don't know the difference between "too" and "to"? Classic.

Posted by: Taylor | Dec 10, 2009 2:32:19 PM

Suh was interviewed by ESPN about his week and being a Heisman finalist. Said if he won, it would make him proud and he would feel like he won it on behalf of all defensive players but more importanly OFFENSIVE LINEMEN who do the dirty work and never get their props. He said, as least defensive linemen can get tackles, etc...

Too bad you guys didn't get to know him like we did. Your loss.

Posted by: Eric in KC | Dec 10, 2009 2:33:40 PM

@ Taylor

I saw that too and thought it was pretty funny.

Posted by: Eric in KC | Dec 10, 2009 2:37:48 PM


Posted by: bear | Dec 10, 2009 2:38:43 PM

great year for Alabama until the biggest injustice ever in the history of college football happens by picking Ingram (no deserving) and when Texas beats them for the National Championship!

Posted by: Chad | Dec 10, 2009 2:38:44 PM

Terrance Cody is a freakin turd. Shouldnt even be mentioned in the same breath as Suh.

Posted by: Chad | Dec 10, 2009 2:50:21 PM

Thomas was a LINEBACKER....two different positions! Linebackers always have more stats the a D tackle. It is just obvious why. A D tackle is man on man with another guy. A linebacker doesnt have a guy right on him to block him. SUH deserves this H-man no matter what. He already has two trophies soon to be the rest.

Posted by: Chad | Dec 10, 2009 2:53:59 PM

and #1 in SCORING defense...the only stat that matters!

Posted by: Chad | Dec 10, 2009 2:55:37 PM

The only stat that matters:
Alabama 13 - 0
Nebraska 9 - 4
By the way, the NCAA tracks official statistics. The scoring defense rankings are:
1 Alabama
2 Nebraska
Like they say, facts is facts.

Posted by: joefriday | Dec 10, 2009 3:08:28 PM

246 yards vs south carolina
113 yards against Florida plus 76 recieving yards
that says it all

Posted by: Berger | Dec 10, 2009 3:18:20 PM

If Ingram wins, there is definitely an anti-west coast bias

Posted by: Stanfordite | Dec 10, 2009 4:12:57 PM


At what point do the new votes stop having an impact on your projection percentage? It would seem that at a certain point the new votes being added would fall in line with your projections. In the last 24 hours Ingram has increased 2.1% with only 40 or so ballots being added to the total. This seems to dispell the 1.8% accuracy claim.

I have read your site and all the data, can you help me understand how just a few ballots are having such a large impact?



Posted by: Drwood35 | Dec 10, 2009 4:15:20 PM

The H------ Memorial Trophy is a registered trademark of the H------ Memorial Trophy Trust. This site is not affiliated with the Trust, not even a little. We're not even using the H------ word, since they don't want us to. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Copyright to and responsibility for all posts and comments are owned by their respective authors.

Obviously, the posts and comments here are the views of their authors, and not of anyone else.

While we're strong believers in free speech, we reserve the right to delete comment spam or other offensive material. Our contributors, however, reserve the right to embarass themselves in public.