No Moore

The Heisman Trophy needs to be abolished.

I’m not generally one for such grandiose, incinerating comments. OK, I am. But I don’t make this type of statement without a litany of background knowledge and at least some research.

Consider these three quarterbacks:

#1 – 193.0 passing yards per game, 136.92 rushing yards per game, 329.92 total yards per game

#2 – 235.83 passing yards per game, 98.67 rushing yards per game, 334.5 total yards per game

#3 – 199.15 passing yards per game, 108.38 rushing yards per game, 307.53 total yards per game

Only one of these quarterbacks is even going to New York for the Heisman presentation. It has to be #1 or #2, right? No, it’s #3. Not only that, #3, Auburn’s Cam Newton is considered the overwhelming favorite.

The case against #2, Nevada’s Colin Kaepernick, is that he played against weak competition. No argument here. But then why is Boise State's Kellen Moore – who played basically the same schedule, averaged 44.1 yards per game LESS than Kaepernick, finished with the same record and lost to Kaepernick head to head – invited?

The argument against #1, Michigan’s Denard Robinson, is that his team’s record wasn’t that good. Like it’s somehow his fault that his team didn’t worry about trivial things like holding opponents under 40 points per game.

But – and realize that the (well-earned in previous years) stereotype that SEC defenses are the nation’s best is wildly inaccurate this season – Robinson faced much more difficult defenses on a week in, week out basis. Newton faced only two elite defenses all year, Mississippi State and LSU. He did next to nothing against the Bulldogs and had a great rushing but poor passing game against LSU.

The Heisman is supposed to go to the most outstanding player in college football, and there’s really no rational way to argue that Newton was more outstanding than Robinson (The fact that the media, namely Herbstreit, gushes over him more is not a rational argument).

Look, Newton’s a winner. I don’t begrudge him his success. But if you switch him and Robinson, their teams’ records are probably the same. Throw in that Newton plays for the premier offensive coordinator in the country, and I find it shameful that Robinson will be watching Newton accept the Heisman on television.

This brings me back to the original point. The Heisman Trophy needs to be abolished. It was not awarded accurately last year, when Mark Ingram won the award despite not even being the most outstanding player on his own team (that would be Rolando McClain, who nearly killed Darren Sproles Sunday).

I would like to see the NCAA create the same award handed out in virtually every other sport, a Most Valuable Player Trophy. If we’re going to preclude players from teams with mediocre records and players who don’t play in major conferences, this award would at least make sense. Semantically, if not romantically.

I’d still vote for Stanford’s Andrew Luck, who is both the most outstanding and most valuable player in the nation. But at least Newton winning wouldn’t be a sham if the award were for the MVP (You know, until you consider that the history books will ultimately show this year’s Auburn team going 0-12).

The Heisman Trophy, as it is currently constructed, lends itself to being a popularity contest. Would changing it to an MVP award change that? I don't know. But at least there would be ways to justify abject travesties like Denard Robinson and Colin Kaepernick finishing below the likes of Kellen Moore.

The definition of Staubvious

Alabama is the best team in the nation. Even though Texas is a bad matchup for them, I expect the Tide to claim their eighth national championship in a very close game. But if there is justice in this world, Alabama will have to wait another year (or two, when Trent Richardson makes a run) to claim its first Heisman Trophy.

Mark Ingram had a very nice season. But being the best offensive player (arguably) on the best team does not cinch the Heisman for you. Especially if offense is the weakest of your team's three units (inarguably).

I love that people act as if Ingram was special against Florida. He was good, but that's it. To put it in perspective, Ingram rushed for 4.0 yards per carry yesterday. Toby Gerhart's WORST ypc day was 4.4 this season.

Never mind that Gerhart had 196 more rushing yards and 11 more touchdowns in one fewer game. The damning argument against Ingram is that he was rarely the best player on his own team against Bama’s elite opponents. Against the six best teams the Tide played (VT, Ole Miss, Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, Florida), Ingram had a total of five TDs. Three were yesterday.

Did Gerhart have a similar problem? Let’s see. Here are Gerhart’s rushing numbers against the best opponents he played:
200 yards, 1 TD
96 yards, 2 TD
123 yards, 2 TD
223 yards, 3 TD
178 yards, 3 TD
136 yards, 4 TD
205 yards, 3 TD (also a passing TD)

To make it simple, Gerhart had two fewer touchdowns in November alone than Ingram had all season.

A dumb argument is that Ingram played much tougher competition. Um, no. First of all, the Pac-10 is far and away the second best conference in college football. Both are wrong, but a person who says the Pac-10 is better than the SEC is less insane than someone who says the Pac-10 is the 3rd best conference. Secondly, Alabama played Florida International, North Texas and Chattanooga.

Stanford ranked opponents: 6 out of 12
Alabama ranked opponents: 5 out of 13

People are saying this year’s Heisman race is as close as it’s been in a long time. For me, Gerhart this year is the most obvious vote since Ricky Williams in 1998. Unless you are willing to vote for a defensive player — and few players on that side of the ball have ever been as deserving as Suh is this year — the only answer is Toby Gerhart.