Who wins the Heisman? How do we decide?

Is it the best player?

The battle-tested winner?

The MVP?

Does anyone really know? As the years go by, it seems that the Heisman trophy has lost its allure. That's not to say fans don't salivate over the though of saying "We have a Heisman winner" and that the honor is at all diminished in the eyes of the players, but something is wrong.

In my opinion, the media is the root of the problem. Analysts, writers and sports casters truly have no true common ground for voting. Many people say that it should be the best player in college football, but then caveat that with bits such as "but he should also be a winner." And then what about the MVP? That's not to say all of these cannot be the same player. In fact, in some years these criteria overlap and the Heisman is nearly unanimous (see Carson Palmer, OJ Simpson and more).

However years such as this year throw people off. The pool of candidates is at the same time loaded and diluted. Let's have a look at the top five against these three different criteria, which for most people would read (in this order, or a slight variation) Graham Harrell, Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow, Michael Crabtree.

The best player? Crabtree.
The MVP? McCoy.
The tested winner? Harrell, Crabtree.

Traditionally, the Heisman should go to the best player in college football (Michael Crabtree). And if voters are going to use a cross-section of these three criteria, then I think the obvious choice should still be Michael Crabtree. Now I can hear the roars and boos coming from Gainesville, Austin, Norman and even from half of Lubbock. But I think it's hard to make an argument against him. Here are things you might here:

"Look at (insert Tebow's and Bradford's) numbers right now."
- Tebow and Bradford both have incredible supporting casts. They have been on fire, but look what they have to work with.

"The Gators are the best team and Tebow is their glue."
- Their defense, running game and Tebow are the glue. And the Heisman shouldn't simply go to (arguably) the best player on the team.

"Colt McCoy is the reason Texas is near the top."
- True. Colt has been incredible. He wills his team to come back from games and no other player in the nation can carry a team like he can. But he DID lose. And he is also not the best player. Remember: the Heisman isn't the MVP Award.

"Someone has to throw those balls to Crabtree."
- Yes, and Harrell does that remarkably well. But that throw to beat Texas was not a touchdown pass. Crabtree is a freak, and no other receiver in the nation would have been able to pivot, change direction, break a tackle and score.

So it's obvious who has my vote at this point.

But that wasn't the point of this article. The reason I am writing is because I think we need to remember that winning isn't everything when it comes to the Heisman. In fact, if OU beats TTU this weekend, then we are choosing from a pool of 1-loss guys. And how do we pick then? JuA win against Tech shouldn't catapult Bradford, unless he throws for 10 TDs. After all, Colt McCoy methodically tore apart the OU defense earlier this season. And, of course, Harrell beat McCoy. And Tebow had a weak start to the season and likely has the best supporting cast of everyone.

That is why the media needs to focus less on winning and value, and more on who the best player is. And that has been--and will continue to be--Michael Crabtree.

Brooks' Response:
First of all, the Heisman Trophy has become irrelevant. I'll hold off on that issue for now, however, and focus on the subject matter.

You're right, the problem is a lack of cohesion on what defines the Heisman. It is some combination of Most Outstanding, Most Valuable, and most wins. Even that, however, has been too broad for voters up to this point.

In reality, the Trophy goes to the best QB or RB on a BCS team. Since Ernie Davis' now Hollywood Trademarked win in 1961, only 5 players have won the trophy from what were at the time non-BCS schools. This statistic is misleading, however, since Notre Dame should count as a BCS school and Penn State has since joined the Big 10. That leaves Roger Staubach in 1963, Andre "Detroit Lions' Savior/Not Only Matt Millen Can Ruin Drafts" Ware in 1989, and Ty "Most Awkward Browns Jersey I've Ever Bought" Detmer in 1990 as the only non-BCS winners. At least Tebow showed sophomores could win it, which I suppose is fair, although the benefits in the long run to the game are debateable.

Even more remarkeable is the lack of diversity amongst positions. Since 1960, only four non-QB/RBs have won, and if you count full backs as RBs, it's only three: Tim Brown, Desmond Howard, and Charles Woodson. Woodson's win as a CB is probably the most remarkable, but even then he only became a true candidate when offensive innovator Lloyd Carr chose to use him as a WR in the 1997 campaign. And yes, they did also have to win the National Title that year, which gets you votes. The only other players who came close to adding such diversity to the award were Steve Emtman (DE, finished 4th behind a WR! Wow, way to think outside the box for one night, voters!) in 1991 and Orlando Pace (OT, finished 4th) in 1996. Both Emtman and Pace were drafted well ahead of their college “superiors” in the NFL draft, so I guess there is no way to argue that these guys were either valuable or talented, possibly more so than the winners.

So to get back to who should win this year, we know we have the limitations here and in Hoogs post. Sorry Shonne Green, being second in the NCAA in rushing per game and the only Division 1 player to have at least 100 yards each game isn’t enough to make up for 4 losses. Sorry, Terrence Cody, but Glenn Dorsey showed last year that being a mind blowing talent on the D line to start the season fades after freak knee injuries in SEC play. Sorry Chase Daniel, but there are more reasons that you will not qualify even as a finalist this year than you have chins. Unfortunate, but as Tommy Chung proved, having great career numbers but a lackluster bowl to end your senior year cannot be overcome. I would like to point out, however, that Steve Threet remains a darkhorse candidate. Perhaps later we can define “darkhorse” as well, since it does technically work in the previous sentence.

But why do these votes even matter? What do I care what the beat writer for the Iowa State Cyclones in the Ames Tribune thinks about college football? The answer is I don’t. The best player in college football, in my opinion, will make the biggest impact in the pros. The #1 overall draft pick, it seems to me, is by definition the player most likely to make an impact immediately. All scouts have to base it on is their tape from college, so it’s based on the same visual the writers base their decision on. Only difference: NFL GMs and scouts get fired for being wrong. If you’re wrong as a writer, you get a spot on Around the Horn, ESPN's version of "Hollywood Squares" next to Jay Mariotti and below Woody Paige. Giving the award to players who are so good they can play against even tougher competition will give the award some much needed credibitlity again. After all, something needs to be done to get over the stain of such recent winners as Gino Toretta, Charlie Ward, Rashaan Salaam, Danny Wuerfful, and Chris Weinke. My choice this year, then, is the player getting the most hype as the potential #1 pick come April: Michael Oher, OT from Ole Miss.

Now, Oher will never get any votes. If I have to choose amongst these three, I’ll also choose Crabtree-- for the same reason stated above. He’s got the numbers, he’s got the wins, and he’s got the “play” at the end of the Texas game to define his season (career, really, since he’s gone in three months). McCoy, Tebow and Bradford have had tremendous seasons, but none have both the undefeated season and a single defining moment to match their numbers. That leaves Crabtree and Harrell, since Harrell threw the pass on that play. What does he have over Harrell? Simple: he’s not Kliff Klingsbury 2.0. Crabtree is going to be a stud at the next level, someone that I will want to continue to watch, and someone who has had the best season around this year, which makes him the only Heisman choice. Even if Texas Tech stumbles, he still deserves the award. He will go in the first 5-10 picks because professionals think he is better at football than the other three.

Give him the award this year, but remember, the real award given in New York comes in April, not December.