The Heisman Pundit Responds

The Heisman Pundit -- almost without doubt the foremost internet authority on all things Heisman -- has read the earlier post here on Outside The Sidelines regarding the Heisman Trophy, and has taken exception to some of the things noted.

If you recall, the money quote from that column was essentially this: "The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for the national championship."

The Heisman Pundit had this to say regarding that particular thesis:

"It's really not that simple. In reality, it may be the other way around: To have a shot at the national championship you probably have to have a Heisman Trophy contender. Having one of what people regard as one of the best players in the country playing for your team at an important position like quarterback or running back is invariably a boost to ranking and record. Would Ohio State have made the national title game without Troy Smith under center? Doubt it. And that's the whole point: Heisman contenders usually make the teams, not the other way around.

So let's look at the main argument.

The Heisman Pundit explicitly stated that in order to have a shot at the national championship, you probably have to have a Heisman Trophy contender.

Does that argument have any validity? As best I can tell, no. Far beyond merely contending for the national championship, six national champions have emerged in the past eleven years with no legitimate Heisman Trophy contender whatsoever.

Among that group includes:

2006 Florida: Despite some ESPN rumblings about Chris Leak potentially being a Heisman contender, the Heisman voters never felt that way. Though the Gators were undisputed national champions, according to the expanded Heisman Trophy voting, he was not among the top 11 vote-getters.

2003 LSU: Though the Tigers won the BCS national championship, they did not have a player finish in the top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2003. In reality, they won it with a journeyman quarterback who came to Baton Rouge via Lansing, Michigan and Minor League Baseball (Mauck), and a tailback who was a one-year freshman wonder (Vincent).

2002 Ohio State: The Buckeyes may have shocked the world by knocking off defending national champion Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, but they did so with an unheralded quarterback (Krenzel), and a true freshman tailback (Clarett). No Buckeye finished in the final top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2002.

1999 Florida State: The Seminoles went undefeated and won the national championship with a convincing win over Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, but didn't have a legitimate Heisman contender. Wide receiver Peter Warrick finished sixth in Heisman voting. He ended with approximately one-tenth of the total points as did Heisman Trophy winner Ron Dayne. Perhaps this is a subjective judgment, but I wouldn't consider finishing sixth in Heisman voting with only roughly one-tenth of the total points as the eventual winner legitimately "contending" for the award.

1998 Tennessee: The Volunteers went undefeated in 1998 and won the national championship, but did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting. What's more, Florida State, the Volunteers opponent in the first ever BCS national championship game, did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting, either.

1997 Nebraska: Though the Corhuskers went undefeated and won the third and final national championship for Tom Osbourne, they did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting in 1997.

So, as noted earlier, that argument just doesn't seem to have very much validity. There have been, in my eyes, entirely too many national champions the past several years that have done so with no legitimate Heisman contender whatsoever for that argument to have any real validity.

Now, let's move to the other corollary of that argument:

"And that's the whole point: Heisman contenders usually make the teams, not the other way around."

On that point, I'd have to disagree. Successful teams, at bottom, are not about having one great player, but instead are about having great players at nearly every position, from top-to-bottom on the depth chart. To say that one player "makes" the team, in my eyes, is absurd. Certainly one player can be highly important to your team's overall successes, no doubt there. However, if all you have is one incredible player, you don't have very much, and aren't going to go very far. Calvin Johnson and 9-5 Georgia Tech provide the textbook example. Troy Smith and the Ohio State Buckeyes, on the other hand, prove the reverse of that point nicely. Though Smith was an integral piece, no doubt about it, Ohio State wasn't in the national championship game solely because of him. Rather, their national championship appearance was about a good offensive line, great receivers (Ginn and Gonzalez), a good running game (Pittman), a great defense (fifth in the country in scoring defense), and one of the best head coaches in the country. At bottom, football is the ultimate team sport, and is not defined by single good players. For any team to have any real national championship contender, they have to be good from top-to-bottom. True one man teams generally end up in mid-tier bowls at best, not hoisting the national championship trophy.

Moreover, if Heisman Trophy winners are really so integral, why have their teams struggled so much in national championship games? Since the inception of the BCS in 1998, Heisman Trophy winners have played in the national championship game six times, and generally it hasn't been pretty for those who have hoisted the Heisman. All told, their teams are only 1-5 in the BCS national championship game. More specifically:

2000: Florida State loses to Oklahoma, 13-2 (Chris Weinke)
2001: Nebraska loses to Miami, 37-14 (Eric Crouch)
2003: Oklahoma loses to LSU, 21-14 (Jason White)
2004: USC beats Oklahoma, 55-19 (Matt Leinart)
2005: USC loses to Texas, 41-38 (Reggie Bush)
2006: Ohio State loses to Florida, 41-14 (Troy Smith)

At bottom, having a Heisman Trophy winner on your team doesn't seem to pay off too much when it is all on the line.

Also, to close, if the Heisman Trophy is viewed as a total team award as opposed to an individual accomplishment, it does help explain why Heisman Trophy winners have generally struggled so greatly in the NFL the past few years. When looked at in that light, it makes a bit of sense. Arguably, the Heisman Trophy winners weren't particularly great players in their own right, but were mainly the by-product of great teams, and once they were faced with a much higher level of competition in the NFL and much more overall parity with their opponents, their true abilities were fully revealed. Certainly there are some exceptions to this rule (Carson Palmer, mainly), but generally that rule could be construed as valid (Jason White, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, etc.).

Either way, it's nice to get into a good debate with one of the best blogs you can find anywhere. I look forward to their response.