I'm not going into detail, I've already said my piece.
Well, what do we have here? An insightful piece detailing each candidate's chances for winning the Heisman while mentioning the holes in their support? Well, shit son...ain't that a fucking waste of time?
The answer is yes.
Why? Because none of these guys are worthy to begin with. This is the lamest crop of Heisman candidates since Gino Torretta and Danny Weurffel managed to get it. But at least those guys had some kind of claim to it being the caretakers of criminally talented teams, that you know, HAD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate the theory that a player's team has to succeed in order to be considered an MVP. But at the same time, when the best choice is from a 9-3 team where the games lost were close enough for that player to get his team back into it failed, then that player isn't deserving. Sure, 5 TD's against East Carolina or another scrub school, like Tennesse or Florida State (ZING!!!), is impressive enough, but, if you're a QB, winning is just as important a stat as yards and TD's.
Sure, Tebow put up awesome numbers...so did Graham Harrell of Texas Tech. Really, what's the difference between the two this year? Both quarterbacked teams that put up some big numbers. And both quaterbacked teams that lost enough games to render their BCS hopes irrelevant.
I'm done with this debate. Why not just rename the award "best QB or RB?" It's pretty obvious these guys aren't the best players in college football, at least to people who watch games. Then again, last year, Joe Thomas was probably the best player in college football and I didn't see him play one snap (but when REAL analysts - guys who actually watch game tape - say that teams would quit rushing on JT's side altogether halfway through games, chances are good he was pretty dominant) so what the fuck do I know? I was rooting for Troy Smith all year.