There are some favorites...but...no clear cut winner at the moment....IMO
There are 6 candidates to choose from and there is a nice highlight video for each player
You can VOTE as many times as you'd like...or...don't vote at all and just enjoy watching some good football player's.
I may be biased because I work at UH but my vote goes to Case Keenum. I don't care how small the conference is, 43TD's and only 3INTs is sick especially with 4800 yards passing and like a 72% completion rate.
Well, he won't, but he still leads the nation in rushing yards per game. Keenum is a good choice, he did have a fantastic season, but I still feel like he has not really been challenged. I mean, did you see how badly Matt Barkley lit up UCLA? True, it was their last game of the season and Lane Kiffin decided to play him the entire time during a blow out, but they beat UCLA 50-0, while Houston won 38-34. It is incredibly difficult to judge teams by final scores, but I honestly wish Houston would have played at least one ranked opponent this season. I will be interested to see what they do against Southern Miss, who is currently ranked #24 and is more than likely the best team they will face all year.
Keenum wins the numbers bonanza, but the last player to win the Heisman in a non-BCS conference was Ty Detmer in 1990. I think Keenum has a good case, especially since he is undefeated and the field is full of also rans from teams with at least a single loss or two. I think it is indeed between Trent Richardson and Andrew Luck. Richardson had an incredibly similar season to 2009 winner Mark Ingram. In fact, his numbers pre-Bowl Game were less than Richardson's right now, Richardson having scored 5 more total TD's and rushing for more yards. The big difference? Ingram's team was undefeated and considered the nations top team. Richardson's Alabama team has that blemish to LSU. If Bama's kicker had not sucked, Richardson would have the Heisman in the bag.
Sorry to say, but I think my vote would be for Andrew Luck. You may say I have a Pac-12 bias, but I tend to dislike most every team in the Pac-12 beside the Ducks. Matt Barkley played better against us, but Luck got the better of him in their meeting. Not to mention, as much as USC seems to think they are the best team in the Pac-12 after beating us, they have the small matter of also losing to Arizona State. Barkley breaking Matt Leinart's record against a hapless UCLA defense in which he played the entire game of 50-0 blow out does little to impress me. The thing with Andrew Luck, while I can see cases for other players, is he did indeed carry this team. Their O-Line is pretty rocket sauce (at least Jonathan Martin and David DeCastro are), but they are not a team oozing with offensive weapons. My feeling is, whoever steps into Case Keenum's shoes is going to put up numbers. With Stanford and Luck, well, they truly sucked at QB for years until he came along. He has only lost to Oregon the past two years, and otherwise has gotten the job done in pretty fantastic fashion. Luck had a very comparable season to last year, where he finished 2nd in Heisman voting. As huge of a year as Keenum has had, I do not think of him as having the season Cam Newton did last year. My 1-2-3 vote would be: Luck, Richardson, Keenum.
I see your point about the UCLA game but that was the first game of the year and Keenum's first game in about a year. You are right that Keenum wasn't challenged but those number are insane. Like I said I am biased because i work here, but the numbers are crazy!
I think if Oregon had a better record James would be right there. The guy is a beast and one of my favorite players.
I hate Trent Richardson as a candidate. He had a solid season but it wasn't spectacular. He has the momentum because of the last game against Auburn.
Luck has also been disappointing to me as well. He doesn't have many weapons around him but with the hype I expected a better year.
Barkley is similar to James in that if USC had a better record he would have a better chance. Same goes for RG3 at Baylor too.
Andrew Luck is so overrated WHEN IT COMES TO HEISMAN VOTING. Not trashing his pro prospects, but people seem to think that his pro-level abilities mean he should be given the Heisman.
Let's take a look at some resumes, shall we?
34TDs, 5 INTs
3678 Passing Yds
72.6 Completion %
191.1 QB Rating
612 Rushing Yds, 7 TDs
Team-8-3 against 8th Strength of Schedule
35 TDs, 9 INTs
3170 Passing Yds
70.0 Completion %
167.5 QB Rating
153 Rushing Yds, 2 TDs
Team-11-1 against 35th SOS
QB 3 (No, duh, its Case Keenum)
43 TDs, 3 INTs
4726 Passing Yds
3 Rushing TDs
Team-12-0 against 104 SOS
34 TDs, 12 INTs (3rd in attempts, so...)
Team-10-1 against 7 SOS
And Montee Ball put of sick numbers. 29 TDs, thats sick.
#2-Robert Griffin III
My top 3 in no order
Matt Barkley-set multiple USC records this year, best QB in the 2nd half of the season
Trent Richardson-best RB all season long
Robert Griffin III-has the moments you want, insanely efficient
I am gonna be real though. If I had a vote I would vote for Case Keenum. I do not though. Realistically, Andrew luck or Trent Richardson is winning this thing.
yupyup, I love Matt Barkley but he couldn't keep his team in the top 25 all year. He is no better than 5th in the Heisman race.
They weren't ranked to start the season because of their struggles last year. They struggled out of the gate, but since midseason he has been the best player in college football bar none. Don't you think it's more impressive to start the year unranked and go to #9 then to just keep a team somehwere inside the top 25 the whole year?
I'd like to see how you have him 5th at best. Keenum has beat up on garbage teams all season and even at 12-0 they are barely inside the top 10. Ball has a case just because his TD #'s are insane. Barkley has outplayed Luck since midseason. Luck has regressed since midseason and Barkley dominated, he also had a far better game head to head (don't need stats I saw the game). I already said Griffin and Trent have a case, but who else? Lamichael James? Injuries and hasn't shown up when needed.
Yes, he was hurt. May not have played well in the two losses, granted. But, your Matt Barkley cr@p must stop. "You saw the game" against Stanford, and still say that Matt Barkley had a "better" game. They were pretty neck and neck, brother. Plus, Barkley could not finish a very winnable game for USC. If he would have won, than he is definitely a Heisman front runner, but that was a BIG loss. Plus, have you seen Barkley's wideouts? They are RIDICULOUS! That does not necessarily mean he is not better than luck, but I think Luck has a lot less to work with and still managed to only lose to us.
Luck also played with a team full of injured players on both sides of the ball. Luck finished with a better QB rating than Barkley, which is not the end all be all, but still shows that he and Barkley are incredibly close. Considering Luck's personnel, I am not surprised he broke USC passing records. His O-Line was even more insane than Luck's, and he has two future first round picks at receiver in Robert Woods and Marqise Lee. But, I think Luck is the better player and he WON their head to head match-up, which counts for something.
He is better than last year, they lost one hell of a receiver in Doug Baldwin and his team was incredibly limited in that capacity. 11-1 beats 10-2 beats 8-3. Stanford even being in the hunt for a national title shot is much more impressive than USC once again competing at a high level. Seen the amount of top 10 recruiting classes those guys have had? Stanford will be destroyed without luck next year. USC will still be in the hunt with all of their weapons. Barkley setting records after that ridiculous UCLA game was a damper if anything on his being in Heisman contention. Watch that game? Luck may get way too much media attention and such, but he is an awesome player and I think he had every bit the season Barkley did. Plus, it does not hurt that Luck will be playing in a BCS bowl and Barkley has already left USC to enter the draft.
Top 5 in order:
1) Case Keenum
2) Trent Richardson
3) Andrew luck
5a&b) Matt Barkley & Montee Ball
Case Keenum played against garbage teams all year but also demolished every team and didn't play much into 4th quarters of alot of games.
Barkley had a hell of a year but he lost head to head against Luck and Barkley has better weapons.
RG3 is ahead because he played against better competition week after week and put up sick numbers.
How is it Barkley's fault that the RB fumbled inside in the endzone? He drove down the field on Stanford nearly every drive of the game, Woods made a bonehead play at the end of regulation that also possibly cost them that game. How is that on Barkley? Woods and Lee are tremendous, there is no denying that, but it's not like Barkley is throwing ducks and they are making unbelievable catches every play to make him look good. He is throwing balls with awesome accuracy right now, or he was before his season ended. Barkley looked better then Luck in the game, I exaggerated with the 'far' part to make my point. They were both great but Barkley looked better.
The season has been a tale of two halves for each guy. Luck started out firing on all cylinders and looked to be every bit the superstar everyone pegged him to be. Barkley despite good #'s, was disappointing early on. Then about two weeks before the Oregon game (not an exact date, but around that time) Luck stopped looking as good. Barkley, however, turned it on and dominated from around that point on. As an Oregon fan, I think we both know which guy came to play and which one didn't against your Ducks.
"Considering Luck's personnel, I am not surprised he broke USC passing records. "
This part I simply cannot agree with at all. I'm assuming you meant Barkley and not Luck, but your basically saying Barkley's cast is better then the one Leinart had and that is just not true. Not to mention Leinart set the record for total TD passes as a sophomore and declined, where Barkley has went from 15-14 to 26-12 to 39-7 without Mike Williams, Dwayne Jarrett, Reggie Bush, Lendale White and an even better O-Line with far better depth. Lee and Woods aren't what Williams was in college, at least not yet.
It's obvious that I'm a huge fan of Barkley, which leads to natural bias. Although I wouldn't exactly say it's Barkley cr@p. His play, however, cannot be denied. For the record, Luck is still the better player, although Barkley had the better season and is more deserving of the Heisman.
I remember that play. It was a stupid call and I think it definitely was on Barkley at least to an extent for putting Woods in that position as far as needing to go that distance to get out of bounds. He absolutely takes some of the blame, and it was not like he was flawless either. Can I at the very least say, you probably LOOKED at the stats from that game and than said what you did. Because, Luck looked like he had cost the team the game with that pick 6, but than he got his team back in the game. He made up for his mistakes, and Barkley made some of his own. Plus, it was not like Luck was having issues getting the ball down the field either.
Barkley did look great against us, that is for sure. But, his receivers against us were definitely more of the story. Plus, I forgot your somehow having USC fandom, which does indeed lead to a bias. My hate of Lane Kiffin may lead to a slight bias as well, though I thought that Matt Barkley might be an eventual Heisman winner after his freshman year. Still, Luck rightfully won Pac-12 Offensive POY (which pains me to say) and Barkley was definitely in the discussion, but I really dislike the whole, two halves theory you have.
Luck did not exactly suck in the second half either, despite your theory. Luck's last 6 games: 68.75%, Barkley's last 6 games: 69.9%. Oh, and Barkley passed for 12 TD's playing the whole damn game against both Colorado and UCLA. But, no, that's not stat stuffing. Matt Barkley also was the only player on USC to throw a pass this season other than Marc Tyler's 1-1 for 2 yards. With all of this said, I think Matt Barkley is an excellent QB and should be a very high NFL draft pick. But, while Matt Leinart had a better team, he was not concerned with breaking records. Lane Kiffin seemed incredibly concerned about doing this with Matt Barkley, which is why I think he let him throw 42 times against UCLA. UCLA, mind you, is so distraught that I am hearing their D is getting burned by the scout team offense.
Also, as someone who has saw Mike Williams up close and personal, he was a beast, but Robert Woods is just as special. He was amazing last year as a freshman, not just as a receiver, but on special teams. If his ribs were not hurt from Barkley looking at him to bail him out constantly early in the season, he would have destroyed us even more. Marqise Lee is a monster, and no, they are not in the NFL yet like those guys are, but they will be. Plus, not having LenDale White and Reggie Bush to score on the ground, of course he should be racking up passing TD's! He also averaged 31 passing attempts per game in his 38 TD season to Barkley's 37. Not to mention, Pete Carroll never said in their last regular season game against Oregon State, "Hey Matt, go nuts". Plus, I never said that his cast was better than Matt Leinart's, but I was saying his cast was stacked, definitely compared to the weapons Luck had.
Matt Barkley is a better QB than Leinart, but I always felt Adrian Peterson should have won the Heisman the year Matt did anyway, lol. I also had nothing against Reggie Bush winning the Heisman, and if Matt had beaten Stanford, I am sure he would have my vote. But, he lost to ASU and Stanford. To me, that loses it for him. Matt Barkley had a great season, but could you say Andrew Luck didn't? Andrew Luck broke his own passing TD record and led Stanford to an 11-1 season.
He lost his only big play receiver from the year before in Doug Baldwin. Their only other receiver with big play capability, left three games early and was for the most part, completely ineffective. Not to mention, not even in the line-up for the Oregon game, along with another playmaking TE (they use a lot of 2 TE sets, hence him not having Matt's insane total yardage) Zach Ertz who got hurt. You can say that Luck did not live up to the hype of the year before, but who does? Leinart had a worse statistical year after his sophomore season and won the Heisman. Tebow was always in the running even after never putting up the numbers of his junior year. But, Luck was actually every bit as good as last year and so was his team. I guess I just do not see why Barkley is that much better than Luck when the records say otherwise and the stats are not that different.
" It was a stupid call and I think it definitely was on Barkley at least to an extent for putting Woods in that position as far as needing to go that distance to get out of bounds."
USC had a timeout. Had Woods just fallen down they get the FG off. That's on Woods not Barkley.
If you look at the stats of the game then Luck looks better. Luck did throw a costly pick in the game, Barkley's (if I remember right) was a dropped pass that came on a blatant PI that wasn't called. So no the stats played no part in my evaluation of that specific game. If they had, I would've favored Luck.
"Luck did not exactly suck in the second half either, despite your theory. Luck's last 6 games: 68.75%, Barkley's last 6 games: 69.9%."
I also disagree with this. Luck's #'s didn't dip too much, but watching him play he wasn't playing nearly as well. He wasn't making the throws he made earlier in the season, or at least not nearly as often. You can definitely see a difference between Luck early season and Luck post-Oregon.
Leinart also played an extra game then Barkley. Bush was the most dangerous open field player in college football and he definitely helped Leinart with his receiving ability. He and White also set up the PA pass. This year the RB's didn't really step up until Barkley did. I do think Lee will be better then Woods, Jarrett and Williams by the time he is done at USc though. He is an absolute monster. I don't want to discredit Luck because he had a great year. Luck slowed down though and Barkley turned it up at the end. The Heisman has almost always been a 2nd half season award, whoever makes the biggest impact last usually wins. Barkley was better then anyone at the end of the season which is why he should be above Luck. I do agree with your last paragraph for the most part though.
I do not think that Luck slowed down, man. Plus, Luck played a whopping two games post Oregon, and won both of them. Matt Barkley had a pretty bad game against Cal also. Luck seemed to do fine against Notre Dame. Yes, Barkley got better as the season progressed, but I still do not think his final two games (which he both killed) means he was exponentially better than Luck in the second half of the year. Especially seeing that USC, if you recall, LOST THE GAME TO STANFORD.
Plus, when Robert Woods was seriously injured against UW (a week before Oregon), Matt threw for 174 yards on 18-28. This, of course, was in the second half of the season. Woods broke records to, also ribs as Barkley was only passing to him for most of the season until he decided to like Marqise Lee as well. Your whole, "blatant PI" thing, does nothing for me. He still had plenty of time and I was shocked that USC decided to do that horribly stupid pass play that was indeed on both he and Woods. I even remember saying that it was ridiculous to have taken that long on the play, and I remember Barkley definitely hesitating as well, burning time off the clock.
Barkley also had two chances in the 4th quarter to win the game that he did not use, besides trying desperately to get them in FG range at the end. Why do these not count as being possible faults in losing a game? If Luck had lost, he would have been at fault to. Plus, is it a guarantee that Heidari makes the over 50 yard FG needed with 1 second left? Which brings me to my final point, Barkley was not that great in the first half of the season. He was much better than the second half. Luck was solid throughout. I definitely believe this to be true. Glad that Matt finished with two monster games, but Luck was solid throughout and lost to Oregon. Barkley beating us and losing to ASU/Luck does not place him ahead of Luck in my mind.
I don't understand how you can blame Barkley for the Stanford loss. That last play is poor awareness on Woods. If he falls down, they get a FG attempt off. Do they make it? Who knows, but it's ridiculous to blame Barkley for a play where his WR ran off NINE seconds to get an extra few yards. I did confuse his interception with his one against Oregon though. The loss to Stanford is an copout answer to bring down Barkley. Barkley played extremely well, Luck threw a near game losing pick (made up for it later) and Barkley was about to tie the game again where his RB fumbled inside the two and no it wasn't because of the handoff. That isn't his fault at all. He moved the ball against them all day long, he doesn't need to score every single drive for for the balem to not be on him.
"Which brings me to my final point, Barkley was not that great in the first half of the season. He was much better than the second half. Luck was solid throughout."
I said the Heisman is a 'what have you done for me lately' award. Luck in the 2nd half of the season did not look as good as his first half. I watched his games and he wasn't hitting guys he was hitting before. Barkley outplayed him in their matchup, and outplayed him in the 2nd half of the season. I haven't brought up stats because I don't need to. Barkley was making throws that Luck wasn't.
You and I are both biased in this situation and I extremely doubt that we will change eachothers minds. It's probably just best to agree to disagree.
But he had two drives to put the game out of reach, USC punted on both. How is that driving down the field the entire time? I do not think he outplayed Luck, it was pretty back and forth. Not to mention, Luck got the ball down the field to tie the game. No, them losing in the third OT is not all his fault. It was his fault they had to be in that situation, though.
He had his chances to end it in regulation by trying for another scoring drive BEFORE the pick even happened. He went three and out, which led to a Stanford FG to tie the game. Is that not a possible clutch situation to seal a game? Am I missing something?
It's like some of our fans blaming our awful kicker for missing a FG at the end to tie USC. We should not have been in that situation. Barkley was able to drive down the field the whole game, except when he had two chances to put the game out of line. So, you can blame Curtis McNeal, but that is a total copout. Barkley was the one who should have put them up even more in two situations they did not use.
It is a full team effort to lose a game and a full effort to win one. Luck and Barkley had remarkably similar seasons given their situations. As I said, if Barkley wins, fully support your 2nd half theory, but he didn't, and I have to say, did not feel he outplayed Andrew Luck in that game. They were SUPER similar, lol. Luck was getting more BS from announcers, especially after the pick 6, but he won the game.
The way you are breaking it down is the reason why Matt Barkley may indeed challenge Luck for the first pick in the draft (which I felt he might before the season), rather than the Heisman trophy. Because, most other things, particularly record and value to his team, points to Luck for the Heisman. Every loss severely hurts your chances. I think that theory holds more ground than your 2nd half award theory. Last winner to lose two games (before Bowl game) and still take the Heisman? Carson Palmer. Barkley and Luck have better numbers than him, but only Luck has a better record.
THEY"RE BOTH OVERRATED (when it comes to their Heisman Candidacy). Two classic examples of guys being overhyped for the award that goes to "The Best College Football Player in the Land" because they are great pro prospects.
And anyone who ever says anything to me about "East-coast Bias" in sports is gonna get this argument shoved down their esophagi.
Whats with all the hype with Luck then.
Some say he's the best cant miss QB since Elway.
I don't see that happening, it'd be funny if he ends up just becoming an avg. NFL QB.
I see where you're coming from.
How is Barkley overrated? He has almost no hype at all this year until like a week ago. I'd still take Luck and Barkley over any QB drafted this year, knowing how well Newton and Dalton have been.
He's been hyped since he signed with USC!
First off, really sorry that you guys lost joecheck88. You had an amazing season, though and Keenum still has the All-Time passing yardage record. Just wondering if you still (objectively, so trying to put your bias aside), believe he should win the Heisman trophy? I know how hard that is to do (I still argue about LaMichael James last year, lol. But, Newton's numbers were insane, especially for that conference). You definitely cannot take away Keenum's numbers being awesome, but I think that his level of competition definitely comes into question. That is a major reason why I think that it is between Luck and Richardson, who both only had one loss and were major reasons for their teams success in tough conferences.
No way he should win heisman now. He needed to take this team undefeated to the Sugar Bowl(assuming that was the bowl they got into). I have forgot Brandon weeden in this whole thing. If I had to pick a few finalist they would be Trent richardson, Brandon Weeden, and Andrew Luck. I would also pick Tyrann Mathieu, he had a big year and fell off after he was suspended. He had a great game against Georgia, enough to get back into my top 5. It was a good year for heisman candidates though.
1) Trent richardson
2) Brandon weeden
3) Tyrann Mathieu
4) Andrew Luck
5) Case Keenum
6) Matt Barkley
7) LaMichael James
8) Montee Ball
I guess, I would put them in that order. I might take some heat for Mathieu but he has been the best player for the best team. I think he should get some credit.
And I was at the Houston vs USM game and it was very disappointing, A win would have secured us a new stadium(most likely) now that is gone for awhile. Plus, Coach Sumlin will probably leave. it isn't looking to good right now as a football program. Atleast basketball is getting better. lol
He is rad. That guy made an incredible amount of huge plays and earned his namesake. I would have him third, after Luck and Richardson. I think Weeden losing to Iowa State ruined his Heisman chances even more than his title chances. Luck passed for more TD's than that dude, with 149 less attempts, without the returning NCAA receiving leader. I do not know why people are so down on Luck. He plays in a pro-style offense and controls games to win. He wins on efficiency rather than gigantic numbers and still manages to put up solid numbers. I was not thrilled about the last old dude Heisman winner in Weinke and I would be much less thrilled with Weeden winning it at 28.
I am a little disappointed in the candidates this year, to be honest. No one truly stood out, everyone has their own reasons for voting for whoever and that usually is involved in expectation more than the way they actually played. It is almost like the NBA MVP, lol. I feel that award is heavily based on emotion and expectation. So, if someone exceeds expectations and does well, they become the favorite. Does that necessarily mean they are better and more valuable than the person still performing at an incredibly high level? I kind of wonder.
If Andrew Luck and Trent Richardson were undefeated, than they would probably be no-brainers. But, that loss definitely gives you doubt. If Keenum had gone undefeated, than he would have put a lot of pressure on voters. LSU is known so much more for their defense than anything else, and it is very difficult for a defender to win the Heisman (Charles Woodson, 1997. Plus he returned and played some WR). I know the arguments, and here is how my ballot would look, 1-5.
1. Andrew Luck
2. Trent Richardson
3. Tyrann Mathieu
4. Matt Barkley
5. Montee Ball
Mathieu is a monster, if he was slightly taller I guarantee he'd be a top 5 pick next year. Dude is Troy P 2.0.
He was more hyped as a high schooler then he has been at USC.
Well, he's being projected as a top-10 draft-pick, so I wouldn't say that everyone has completely forgotten about him.
I had montee ball at 8 and he gets the invite. I liked Barkley over RG3 but RG3 came out of nowhere so he probably got extra props for that.
Blaine Gabbert was a top 10 pick this year. Was he hyped? Not at all. By hype I mean media attention, which Barkley has surprisingly gotten very little of.
I think part of the reason Barkley didn't get the attention is because he is at USC and they had no postseason hopes from the start of the year. Barkley should be a good QB in the league. He was hyped early in his career but why talk about a guy on a team that can't win any championship games?
I agree. I'm not complaining, just arguing the fact that PG said he was overhyped.
Nah, overhyped was Andrew Luck.