Burrow a No-Brainer in Evolution of Heisman Voting Process

Kudos to Joe Burrow, a very deserving Heisman Trophy winner.

It’s also great that Burrow checked all the boxes on the award’s criteria. Including the ``the pursuit of excellence with integrity’’ clause.

As a stickler—in this case, at least—for following the instructions, I have had to disqualify several recent Heisman winners from my ballot for integrity reasons. Including suspicion of father accepting large amount of money in exchange for son attending school/laptop disappearance/eligibility questions, embarrassingly excessive partying, disrespecting opponent in deplorable way after road victory, and sexual assault investigation/allegedly pilfering seafood at supermarket.

But that’s just me. I would have been cool with excessive partying—and maybe even disrespecting opponent—if they hadn’t been so blatantly obnoxious. I’m a fan of integrity. It never came up when I voted for the Vezina Trophy—which, by the way, does not come with an integrity clause. But if the Heisman people want to bring up integrity, I am not going to ignore their wishes.

Glad that was a non-issue in the Heisman this year.

But it is interesting to note that Heisman Trophy voting has changed dramatically over the years.

In 1987, when I was covering Notre Dame, Tim Brown won. A wide receiver on a 7-4 team. Yes, he was a terrific kick returner as well as a receiver. And yes, it was Notre Dame. But four losses? I’m guessing there will never be another Heisman winner on a team with more than two losses. (I’m talking regular-season losses. Because the post-season comes after the Heisman voting. Which is a topic for another day.)

Take a guess at how many players have won the Heisman with more than one loss since 2012. . . One: Lamar Jackson, who won by offsetting Louisville’s three losses in 2016 with some singularly spectacular performances. Remember the Florida State game? When Florida State was still Florida State?

The list: Joe Burrow, undefeated. Kyler Murray, one loss. Baker Mayfield, 1. Lamar Jackson, 3. Marcus Mariota, 1. Jameis Winston, 0. (Johnny Manziel beat the trend by winning with two losses in 2012.

How different the world has become since Paul Hornung won the Heisman in 1956 while playing for a 2-8 Notre Dame. Two and Eight!

Of course, 1956 was a strange Heisman year in many ways. Five players received at least 100 first-place votes, including Syracuse stud Jim Brown, who went on to be in the discussion for best all-time NFL running back. The world might not have been ready for a black Heisman Trophy winner in 1956. But another Syracuse standout runner, Ernie Davis, broke the color line five years later.

Brown actually finished fifth. Two stars from unbeaten national champion Oklahoma, Tommy McDonald and Jerry Tubbs, plus Tennessee standout Johnny Majors, the South’s favorite son, also were in that very divided Heisman hunt.

That rarely happens now.

In the past, the Heisman was more subjective. Before television was ubiquitous, voters and fans in different parts of the country rarely saw contenders from other regions. (Except for Notre Dame and its national schedule.) And back in the day, voters tended to have a regional bias that remained strong in the voting. There were even maps that showed how the contenders were faring in various regions of the country.

Plus, there were versatility and sportsmanship factors. In that same 1987 when receiver/returner Tim Brown was crowned, Gordie Lockbaum, a two-way player (running back and safety) from Division I-AA Holy Cross was a Heisman finalist. Lockbaum, who was on my ballot, finished third. Syracuse quarterback Don McPherson was second and Michigan State runner Lorenzo White was fourth.

What are the odds of a two-way player from an FCS school mounting a Heisman campaign in the 21st Century? Astronomical or incalculable?

Now it’s the best players on the best teams. It’s a national MVP, which means the quarterback on the No. 1 team has a big leg up on the field, and the quarterbacks on other national championship contenders are the likely runners-up.

So it’s understandable that Joe Burrow won by the widest margin in Heisman history. He certainly topped my ballot.

If I had fully realized that going to New York as a Heisman finalist was such a big deal to Jonathan Taylor, I might have voted him first on my ballot—knowing that Burrow wouldn’t have been affected. Jonathan Taylor did just about everything a running back can—and finished a distant fifth

The point is, the way we choose Heisman winners has evolved over the years.

The process used to be more receptive to accomplished players, even if their position and won-lost record were outside the norm. There also was an element of it being a career award. That’s partly because before everybody saw every highlight, if not every game, it was more of a challenge to come out of nowhere in one season to be recognized as a Heisman standout. It was generally for seniors who had attracted attention before they were seniors.

Now, though, you’re talking about the MVP of the best team. And that means you’re pretty much talking about quarterbacks.

Which makes it easier on voters. But tougher on running backs. And virtually impossible for players on teams that aren’t in the hunt for the national championship. I don't know that that's a bad thing. But it was pretty fun when an exceptional player from an unlikely place or position could be in the hunt regularly.