Stating the Heisman Cases

The Heisman field is now set, and while it’s said nearly every season, this year’s may be the deepest pool of nominees. In a departure from most years, there are only quarterbacks up for the award. That makes this race that much more exciting. The last Heisman vote comparable to this season’s was 2009, and the field is almost a mirror image: two quarterbacks, two running backs and a defensive player.

So which of the remaining contenders is going to leave New York with the most coveted individual honor in the game? SaturdayBlitz.com makes the case for and against each.

Montee Ball, RB, Wisconsin

For the first half of the season, Montee Ball was living in the shadow of quarterback Russell Wilson. Now the only shadow looming over Ball’s sensational campaign is that of history vis a vis Barry Sanders. Ball’s 38 touchdowns leave him one shy of Sanders’ record set in 1988 — a season in which Sanders won the Heisman.

The Numbers

275 carries, 1759 yards, 32 TD; 20 receptions, 255 yards, 6 TD

The Case For

Heisman Trophy winners have their names etched in the annals of college football history, and what could be more historic than setting the touchdown record (even with a few extra games?). Entering the discussion alongside arguably the greatest collegiate running back ever certainly bolsters Ball’s case. And as for impact on his team, Ball emerged as the clear scoring force for a very un-Big Ten-like offense in Madison. Whether it was his presence powering Wilson or vice versa, the result was the nation’s fourth most points scored per game and a conference title.

The Case Against

That Russell Wilson is featured so prominently in the conversation regarding the Wisconsin offense could hinder Ball’s candidacy, even if Wilson’s not himself a Heisman finalist. Thus, Ball’s ridiculous touchdown total could be seen more as the byproduct of the system around him than his own contribution — fairly or otherwise.

UW also played a lackluster non-conference schedule. In wins over UNLV, Oregon State, South Dakota and Northern Illinois, Ball scored nine of his rushing touchdowns. Now, 23 scores in nine games of Big Ten competition is still mighty impressive, but the Badgers’ weak OOC could haunt him.

Verdict

Perhaps it’s the notion that doesn’t apply to Ball, yet is still firmly held that Wisconsin backs are merely bruising goal line rushers. Maybe it’s a lack of highlight reel moments. For one reason or another, Ball just doesn’t seem to have the buzz of his fellow Heisman candidates, and that ultimately spells defeat.

Robert Griffin III, QB, Baylor

Successful football requires 11 parts in synchroncity. Rarely is one piece that much more valuable than the rest, though at Baylor the case can be made. RG3 has been about as close to a one-man offense as anyone could imagine, with all due respect to a talented receiving corps. His ability to pass ranks him among the nation’s best quarterbacks, but his feet separates him from the pack.

The Numbers

267-369 (74.2 percent), 3998 yards, 36 TD, 6 INT; 161 carries, 644 yards, 9 TD

The Case For

The kind of numbers Robert Griffin III has posted are historically significant. Few passing quarterbacks score or compile yards with the equal efficiency RG3 has exhibited. He’s better in every passing statistic than the other quarterback nominee. Add that he’s also Baylor’s second most prolific rusher, and it only compounds the value RG3 has to a 9-3 football team, playing in what was widely regarded the best top-to-bottom conference this season.

The Case Against

For better or worse, the Heisman Trophy is something of a team award. In the last 20 years, virtually every winner has been in or very close to the national championship hunt. Only Tim Tebow in 2007 won the award without being in that title discussion, and Tebow had an all-time historic campaign. While RG3’s season is spectacular, is it comparable to Tebow’s 20-20 ’07? That’s the question lingering over his candidacy.

Verdict

Just call RG3 Hansel, because he’s so hot right now.

But does hype signify victory? Two years ago, Ndamukong Suh and Toby Gerhart were the clear talked-about candidates when Mark Ingram won. RG3 is in a similar boat. He probably should win from the standpoint of besting his competition statistically, and being the key to Baylor’s astounding success. However, precedent is firmly against him.

Andrew Luck, QB, Stanford

The consummate professional, even if he’s still techncially an amateur, Andrew Luck wins football games. He’s taken the group around him and elevated it to previously unreachable heights.

The Numbers

261-373 (70.0 percent), 3170 yards, 35 TD, 9 INT; 43 carries, 153 yards, 2 TD

The Case For

Stanford had its second 11-1 regular season finish and BCS bowl in as many years with Luck guiding the ship. Because of its academic standards and football tradition (read: not much of one), Stanford plays with perhaps a lesser talent pool than other universities. That makes what Luck has done all the more remarkable. Furthermore, he’s maintained a high level of play despite losing key weapons from a season ago and undergoing a coaching change. He’s in the conversation for player who improves his team the most.

The Case Against

Luck led Stanford to an impressive 11-1 mark, but the Cardinal schedule was lacking punch. Stanford played two essential gut-check games against top caliber opponents, USC and Oregon. Luck’s worst game of the season, while still a decent outing, came in a 53-30 rout vs. the latter. That lost cost SU not only the Pac-12 Championship, but a shot at the BCS title. The Oregon game was in essence a marquee opportunity for a Heisman moment that was for naught.

Verdict

If the Heisman race is a marathon, Luck was given a mile advantage before the starting gun. Reaching NYC a season ago and being the object of media affection ever since has made Luck the It candidate since last winter. That goes a long way with voters. Furthermore, the case for the Heisman as a Most Valuable Player award certainly benefits Luck. No one can question how much different this Cardinal team would be without his presence. He wouldn’t be my vote if I had one, but he is my frontrunner.

Tyrann Mathieu, CB, LSU

The Honey Badger makes watching defense fun. He’s as explosive in the secondary as any running back bursting out of the backfield. In a year when a team has taken center stage with its defense, it’s only right that its leader be a Heisman nominee.

The Numbers

70 tackles, 2 INT, 4 fumble recoveries (2 TD), 7 broken-up passes, 9 pass deflections, 6 forced fumbles; 26 punt returns, 420 yards, 2 TD

The Case For

The most individually impressive player on the best team in college football always has had a leg up in Heisman balloting. So what if Tyrann Mathieu is on the defensive end? If anything that should help his candidacy, as LSU is renowned for its defensive prowess. That starts with a loaded secondary, of which Honey Badger is the clear leader. He has the most tackles among the celebrated Tiger defense despite missing a game. His ability to play either cornerback or safety effectively gives Les Miles a huge schematic advantage. He has a nose for the ball, evident in his six forced fumbles.

Further boosting Mathieu’s campaign, if not being the sole reason he’s headed to New York, is his special teams play. Desmond Howard and Tim Brown, the only receivers to win the award, were also prolific returners. Same for the benchmark Mathieu’s trying to meet set by the only defensive Heisman winner ever, Charles Woodson. With punt returns for score in each of the Tigers’ last two (and nationally televised) contests, he certainly bolstered his hype.

The Case Against

Defensive players don’t win the Heisman. The pomposity of certain voters treats defensive players nominated for the award as novelty acts. Mathieu’s at a severe disadvantage in this facet, as well as having missed a game in October for a suspension. Injury would likely be easier for voters to overcome. Look at how Baseball Hall of Fame voters punish nominees for character issues, and the precedent is clear.

Verdict

Mathieu’s candidacy may be the most intriguing because defensive players are so rarely considered for the Heisman. His performance is certainly worth of it, and he embodies the typical mindset of being the key component to a championship caliber team’s best unit. Literally decades of precedent work against him, though, as does his suspension. It will be an uphill for Mathieu.

Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama

A veritable force of nature when he gets the ball in his hands, Trent Richardson is arguably the most unstoppable of the candidates despite having the least eye-popping numbers.

The Numbers

263 carries, 1583 yards, 20 TD; 27 receptions, 327 yards, 3 TD

The Case For

It was once said that Dean Smith was the only person who could slow Michael Jordan on the basketball court. Similarly, Nick Saban’s sparing use of Trent Richardson Richardson’s explosiveness is evident every time he touches the ball. UA just doesn’t need him to all that often. That may not hurt Richardson, since he has exhibited so emphatically what he’s capable of in the moments he’s called upon — like in the Tide’s finale against Auburn, when Richardson put up heroic numbers.

The Case Against

Richardson lacks the gaudy numbers of the other candidates. While that’s a positive for the team, and since this is a team award not a huge hinderance for Richardson, it does work against him. Team also works against him from the standpoint of a very likely backlash for the Tide’s national title bid. UA gets another crack at LSU despite a rather sizable public outcry for Oklahoma State. Richardson had a decent game against the vaunted LSU defense, something that could boost his candidacy. But frankly, much of the public seems worn out by the SEC.

Verdict

T-3’s candidacy is very similar to Ingram’s in 2009. Other choices were far more sexy, and were getting much more media attention in the days leading up to the vote. But like The Tortoise and The Hare — an ironically analogy given Richardson’s blazing speed — steady wins races. Don’t be surprised if Richardson is a surprise recipient.