And I know lots of people won't like the Ball pick at 1, but I can't ignore the stats. And sure the Big 10 isn't spectacular, but they aren't pushovers either.

What is a Heisman?

I suspect that Richardson will win it though, because of the undying love the SEC gets.

Griffin gets it as an apology to the big 12.

@hammac: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisman_Trophy

It is a trophy that goes to the most outstanding player in collegiate football

My thinking about Ball is colored by the Ohio State game, in which he was boxed in by our defense which wasn't very good all year against the run. Of course in the aggregate his numbers are phenomenal and he has 200 more yards than Richardson off a dozen more carries.

My 5 would be:

1 - RGIII
2 - Richardson
3 - Ball

4 & 5 don't even deserve invitations. Barkley & Weeden deserve spots over Luck and Mathieu's invitation is a joke.

"4 & 5 don't even deserve invitations. Barkley & Weeden deserve spots over Luck and Mathieu's invitation is a joke."

I sort of agree. I don't think Matthieu should be in. Haven't seen enough of Barkley to rate his performance. I can definitely see Weeden having a spot instead of Luck, but I do think Luck is deserving of nomination.

And I don't have any real problems with your rating either. The top 3, to me, are all very close. Ball certainly won't get it, but I think it may be hard for some voters to justify putting Richardson ahead of Ball. Which only helps the chances of Griffin III

Who will, or who should?

If will, the major sports outlets are reporting that Griffin is rockin' the #1 votes right now. I would go, for "will":

1. Robert Griffin III, Baylor QB
2. Trent Richardson, Alabama HB
3. Andrew Luck, Stanford QB
4. Tyrann Mathieu, LSU DB
5. Montee Ball, Wisconsin HB

Should, on the other hand... "most outstanding" is really subjective, of course, and the criteria never seems to be consistent. I'm judging based on 3 factors:
(a) What the player has done to set himself apart from the others at his position;
(b) What kind of success has the team had as a direct result of the player's performance;
(c) How many plays has the player made which immediately changed the tempo/momentum/etc. of a game

Based on those criteria:

1. Griffin III
2. Ball
3. Mathieu
4. Luck
5. Richardson

And I'm not being a homer with #3, despite what people are bound to claim. Mathieu played the decisive role in LSU's wins over Oregon, Arkansas and Georgia and was a major part of the win over Alabama.

Barkley passed for something like 400 more yards than Luck and had a better TD/INT ratio. When it came to their best mutual opponent, USC beat Oregon while Stanford got blown out (Barkley threw for 4 TDs/1 INT while Luck had 3 TDs and 2 INTs a quite a bit less yardage). Oregon's coach certainly thought Barkley was better. In the head-to-head the stats were pretty close, although Luck had a better game there (mainly I think because Woods had a terrible game vs Stanford). There's a general sense though that Luck underachieved in a year where he was the unanimous pick to be god's gift to football whereas USC under Barkley surpassed expectations.

Yeah, Barkley not getting invited while Luck did was unfortunate. I'd put Barkley in Luck's spot easily.

Mathieu at #3 is pure homerism. The guy had 2 INTs and 2 punt returns for TDs. How does that qualify you to be ahead of Montee Ball, who almost broke the single season record for TDs and led the country is rushing?

Sorry I conflated your lists.

2 INTs, 2 punt return TDs, 6 forced fumbles and 4 fumble recoveries. How do you ignore the fumbles? That's been his primary big-play contribution... hell, he's already broken the career forced fumbles mark at LSU. He's having a season that's statistically very similar to Charles Woodson's 1997 Heisman season.

And I put Ball at 2, Mathieu at 3.

Ahh, gotcha, last sentence redacted then.

Mattieu is no shut down corner and he played in a weak passing conference. If you're not even the best at your position why should you be a heisman finalist?

Heck, Mattieu isn't even the best DB on his team.

Mathieu doesn't play one set position, which is why I listed him as a DB instead of a CB/S/etc. It's his ridiculous versatility - and the number of game-changing plays he's made as a consequence - which have him in the Heisman discussion; pigeonholing him into being a corner is like saying Sam Bradford shouldn't have won the Heisman in 2008 because he only had 47 rushing yards.

In any one game, Mathieu will play:

* in the nickel slot, which in LSU's scheme is equivalent to playing as an undersized outside linebacker
* primary or secondary cornerback
* free safety
* punt returner
* kick returner
* gunner

And make big plays at all of those spots.

Mathieu.

I know nothing of College American Football, but I know a real good name when I see it! That's a French name, and it's mine on top of it! So I'm all for him making my name famous until I do so.

Muhammad Sanu on a write in ballot

Griffin for the win.

Don't give me stats. Players play in different systems in different conferences and against different types of competitions. If you want to talk stats, please vote Case Keenum and sit over in the corner with the stats guys to be ignored, k?

Barkley has a better line and WRs than Luck. Luck had a better year last year. Griffin played against poor competition (most of the big-12 are poor this year) and is in a spread system similar to Houston's, so it gives him inflated stats. Ball is a wisconsin back, and after Dayne we know this is because the badgers have superior lines, not because of the back. Richardson is in the SEC, so he hasn't shown a ton of amazing plays because of the still defenses he needs to face. Mathieu is a wildcard, but the Heisman has a long standing tradition of ignoring defensive players, even if they are as big a playmaker as Mathieu.

If you ask me, I say Luck or Griffin with Mathieu a wildcard. If I had to pick, it'd be between Mathieu and Griffin with Mathieu probably taking it.

Tebow played in a spread offense, oh but he played against the SEC, blah blah blah.

"And make big plays at all of those spots."

Except if those big plays involve covering receivers.

Woodson had 8 INTs and nobody wanted to throw his way.

Montee Ball is the most deserving candidate. Led the country in rushing yards, will probably break Barry Sanders' TD record, and had some of his best games against very good defenses (for example, 151 vs nebraska and 156 vs penn st). He also had a much better yards per carry average than Richardson, and Ball's numbers over the last five games have been ridiculous. Plus, he plays for a BCS bowl team.

Barkley should've been invited instead of Matheiu. USC got hosed in general this year.

The Heisman's mission statement is to reward the "Most outstanding college football player..."

This year I've watched a great deal of college football -- more than almost any other year. Without a doubt in my mind, RGIII is the "most outstanding" player in the nation. I always look at the "without him" test -- i.e., how is his team without him.

Alabama is just as good without Richardson -- they have a pretty dull offense anyway and behind that OLine, most decent backs are going to get 1000 yards. He's a great RB, no doubt, but he's not the reason Alabama is playing for the NC.

LSU isn't going to lose any games without the Honey Badger. In fact, the games he sat out were still victories for LSU. He's a game changer for sure. But, as a Michigan Man, I can tell you 100% unequivocally that without Charles Woodson in 1997, Michigan doesn't go undefeated and does not win the NC -- he near singlehandedly won several games with INT's and kick returns for TD's. Mathieu has done similar things, but not to the extent that Woodson did.

I would say that Stanford isn't anywhere near as successful as they were this season without Luck. But, in the biggest of game vs. USC and Oregon, to me, he didn't get it down. By contrast, Baylor is nothing without RGIII and in the biggest games, he came up HUGE.

Easy choice, but I am sure the voters will mess it up.

Frank, please see my comment on stats... then about wisconsin backs.

a game against neb and against pennst (while under major controversy) isn't the same as all the games against SEC opponents. I would have loved to see Balls 25 yard game against alabama or lsu...

I think Montee Ball should be included in the discussion, and possibly be #2 behind RGIII. But again, Wisconsin wasn't winning games because of Ball, he was a big part of their success this year, but Wisconsin is still a good team without him. For a RB to win the Heisman, IMO, they have to not only put on a dominating display, but it has to be obvious that they were the reason that their team was successful. When Ricky Williams won it, it was obvious. When Barry Sanders won it, it was obvious. That was why I disagreed with Reggie Bush winning, and thought that it should have gone to Vince Young -- USC was not winning because of Bush, while Texas relied almost entirely upon Young's brilliance.

@fortknox: How else do you judge players if not stats? The SEC is a good conference, but I won't just take your word that Alabama's opponents were better at run defense than Wisconsin's. In fact, Wisconsin played more top 30 opponents than Alabama. And other than LSU, what great defenses did Alabama play? (Richardson didnt score a touchdown and averaged less than 4 yards a carry against lsu)

Also, I don't buy your argument about Ball's success being a product of his o-line but that not being true for Richardson. 4 of Alabama's starting o linemen are projected draft picks and they obviously blocked well for Ingram. Bringing up a wisconsin RB from more than 10 years ago who played under a different head coach and who then didnt pan out in the nfl is irrelevant

@MichiganMan: that is a good point. Although in that case why did Tebow win when his team was only 9-4? But yeah, if its an award for most valuable, then it would be Griffin or Luck.

I don't remember the other players in the discussion when 9-4 Tebow won the award. There are some years when there just isn't as much competition, and the choice is relatively obvious. That year the finalists were Brennan, Daniel, McFadden, and Tebow -- that's a QB from Hawaii, a QB from Mizzu, RB from Arkansas, and a QB from Florida. No real competition.

Also, as we're now seeing in the NFL, Tebow has something unexplainable that seems to captivate people and make them swoon over him. Michigan kicked the shit of Tebow and the Gators that year, and to be honest I wasn't too impressed with him.

I don't think richardson is deserving either, Frank.

And there's a saying in football (maybe more sports): "Stats are for losers."
This means that people more concerned with breaking records instead of doing what is needed to win tend to lose games.

So a RB may sit once a game is out of hand, without getting a TD because WRs have been breaking short pass plays for TDs. QBs may not have a great game because the opponents run defense is so porous that they are getting 20 yards per play on the ground. Stats is something I don't mind looking at, but when someone says "Barkley had a better game against Oregon than Luck" or "Ball has so many more rushing yards than Richardson", I balk. I'd rather watch multiple games and see who shines when they are asked to shine. I take into account opponent defenses, situation, personnel that assist the star (like o-line for RB, WRs for QB, etc...).

Stats are something you look at, but never a good measuring stick in a comparison.
Houston's Case Keenum broke countless passing records, yet isn't getting much talk. Why aren't we talking about Keenum being sooo much better than Luck? If you can't make that comparison (which is a good thing), you shouldn't do it with other players.

And based on all of that, you give it to Matthieu even though he's on LSU's defense top rated defense and played in a conference with few top rated QBs? Ok...

If all I concerned myself with was stats, I would have Ball over Richardson. The reason I don't is because of Russell Wilson (and because I wasn't impressed when he played OSU). Even though Richardson is helped by Alabama's defense.

"a game against neb and against pennst (while under major controversy) isn't the same as all the games against SEC opponents. I would have loved to see Balls 25 yard game against alabama or lsu..."

And yet Penn State did a much better job vs Richardson than most of the SEC. Funny, that.

I gotta say: it's really cool seeing you all discuss a guy who shares my family name!

@fortknox: OK, I agree with you that players shouldn't be concerned about their own stats. But statistics are still a way to compare players. Obviously its tough in college because of the varying schemes, levels of competition, etc. But it still plays a role. Who has your Heisman vote and why?

@Putin: I feel like Wilson benefits more from the running game than vice versa. He wasn't an amazing QB while he was at NC State.

It may not be Mathieu (But I do think he's a legitimate contender) but it's ridiculous that Defensive players are always overlooked for the Heisman. There's no way that an offensive player is the most outstanding player *every year*. It happened with Eric Berry several years ago, and it will happen with Matthieu, even though he'll improve in years to come. Stopping a touchdown is one hell of a lot bigger feat than scoring one, but defensive players never get recognized for it because statistics don't summarize them as easily.