Any serious discussion of the Heisman Trophy should always begin with: "Of course, it's absolutely impossible to select the 'Most Outstanding College Football Player in the United States.'" 

 

First of all, define "outstanding." Go on, just try. Do you mean outstanding as in "the best player"? How, exactly, would that be determined? Why couldn't a guard from, say, North Texas, be as outstanding as a quarterback from anywhere? For that matter, why can't a defensive tackle or linebacker? 

 

If everyone really believes what they say, that "defense wins championships," how come only one full-time defensive player, Michigan defensive back Charles Woodson in 1997, has ever won the trophy? (And even he drew attention because he played a little offense and returned punts.) Prior to 1963, when players had to put in time on both sides of the ball, defensive ability was an important consideration for the Heisman; since then, voters have paid lip service to defense with just a single statue.

 

"Outstanding," as we all know, means the player with the gaudiest numbers on a well-publicized team. And, increasingly, in a college game that more and more imitates the pros, that means the winner will be a quarterback. Yes, Reggie Bush won it last year, but only because he was an outstanding player on a team that already had a Heisman Trophy quarterback, Matt Leinart. If Bush had played for Wisconsin or Oregon or Mississippi State, you probably wouldn't have even heard him mentioned as a Heisman contender. Quarterbacks have won five of the last six Heismans, and they're probably going to win them every year from now on until something drastic happens to change college football. 

 

Since this is a fact of life, it would be refreshing if everyone would just admit it and get down to establishing some common sense guidelines for the selection. 

 

We'd like to suggest a few. First, the most obvious question should be: Is the candidate, as near as can be determined, the best player in the country at his position? Okay, this is by and large a subjective call, but it should at least be asked; if you don't think that so-and-so is really the best quarterback or running back in the country, why are you voting for him? 

 

Second, are the candidate's numbers meaningful? Did they actually help to make his team competitive, or were they simply piled on to impress voters?

 

Third, were the candidate's stats compiled against worthy opposition? 

 

Let's apply these standards to the two leading candidates for this year's Heisman and see how they stack up. We're talking about Troy Smith, the senior quarterback for No. 1 Ohio State, and Brady Quinn, Notre Dame's senior quarterback and the leading Heisman vote getter from last year playing college football this year. (Quinn finished fourth in the Heisman race last year behind Reggie Bush, Vince Young and Matt Leinart.)

 

There's little doubt that Smith has already won this year's Heisman Trophy, which will be announced Saturday. Smith pulled even with the preseason favorite, Quinn, early in the year when the Irish were trounced by Michigan, 47-21. He probably nailed it down during his last regular-season game when Ohio State nipped Michigan, 42-39. (A victory in a big, nationally televised late-season game also seems to be a prerequisite for winning the Heisman.)

 

As Austin Murphy wrote in Sports Illustrated, "Smith had the trophy wrapped up by halftime." For good measure, Southern Cal beat Notre Dame the next week, 44-24, to sink any chances Quinn might still have had. He had a decent day, but not a Heisman-winning day: 22 of 45 for 274 yards, 3 TDs and 0 INTs against a team that was ranked No. 2 in the country.

 

Let's do some analysis and see if Murphy's judgment is justified. Here are the regular-season passing numbers for these leading Heisman candidates:

 

	Comp.	Att.	Pct.	Yards	YPA	TDs	TD%	INTs	INT%
Troy Smith	199	297	67.0	2,507	8.44	30	10.1	5	1.7
Brady Quinn	274	432	63.4	3,278	7.60	35	8.1	5	1.2

 

Clearly, Quinn has the advantage in passing yards and touchdowns, though this is perhaps unfair to Smith, as his team didn't need to pass as often to win. A comparison of their quality stats – yards per throw, interception rate, touchdowns to interceptions – reveals no clear difference between them. Smith posted the higher yards per throw, while Quinn has a lower interception percentage and better TD-to-INT ratio.

   

Which passer was most helped by schedule and his supporting talent? Regarding the first point, there's a misconception among the "pundits" that Ohio State played a tougher schedule than Notre Dame. They did not. OSU's opponents, not counting their games against the Buckeyes, had a combined record of 73-59. Notre Dame's opponents, likewise, were 75-48.

 

Each team had some cupcakes. The Buckeyes played non-conference games against mid-majors Northern Illinois (7-5) and Bowling Green (4-8). Notre Dame faced North Carolina (3-9) and Army (3-9). But the top of the schedule was tougher for Notre Dame.

Their top six opponents, based on Sagarin's neutral field power ratings in USA Today, were USC (No. 2), Michigan (3), UCLA (20), Penn State (23), Georgia Tech (35), and Navy (43). These teams were a combined 52-16.

 

Ohio State's top six opponents were Michigan (3), Texas (19), Penn State (23), Minnesota (37), Cincinnati (40) and Iowa (46).  These teams were a combined 47-19.

 

How did our Heisman candidates do against their toughest six opponents? Let's look at the Cold, Hard Football Facts:

 

Smith performed a bit better in most categories, though the teams Quinn faced, as we've just seen, were a bit tougher overall. How much, then, of Smith's edge, if indeed he has an edge, was due to his own skill and how much to the talent of his teammates?

 

For instance, which quarterback got more help from his running game? The Buckeyes averaged 180 yards per game and 4.7 yards per rush, while Notre Dame's running attack was a little less than mediocre, averaging 124 yards per game and 3.8 yards per carry. Even against Michigan, with one of the toughest run defenses in the country, the Buckeyes gouged out 187 yards on the ground.

 

How about pass blocking? Here the Buckeyes have a substantial edge over the Irish, allowing only 13 sacks on Smith, while Quinn's line let him be taken down 30 times.

 

How about their respective defenses? How were the two quarterbacks helped out in terms of field position and game situations? Here, Smith had the biggest advantage of all: Ohio State's defense gave up just 273 yards and 10.4 points per game, second-best in the nation. Notre Dame's "untenacious" D gave up 320.5 yards per game and an average of 22.4 points. In only one game all season was Smith really under pressure, against Michigan, and he acquitted himself brilliantly.

 

But the fact is that, all season long, Smith didn't have to play catch-up and could pretty much pick and choose the spots he wanted to throw in – and when he wasn't throwing, he had a first-rate rushing attack on which he could rely. Quinn had none of these advantages and was pressed in virtually every game not only to run the offense but to be the offense.

 

How about meaningful numbers? Smith and Ohio State cruised for much of the season. Only two of their games, against Illinois and Michigan, were decided by fewer than 17 points. Quinn, meanwhile, led two of the most stunning comebacks of the season. In a 40-37 win over Michigan State, he threw five TD passes, two in the final 9 minutes. In a 20-17 victory over UCLA, the decisive margin came on Quinn's 45-yard TD pass with 27 seconds to play.

 

The uncritical acceptance by so many writers and commentators of Troy Smith's Heisman worthiness reflects an attitude that has become increasingly popular in college football over the last couple of decades, namely that "the best player on the best team" – or, at least the player on the best team with the gaudiest stats – is automatically the best player in the nation.

 

This has resulted in some relatively undistinguished quarterbacks winning the Heisman, most notably Miami's Gino Torretta (1992), Florida State's Charlie Ward (1993), Florida's Danny Wuerffel (1996), Florida State's Chris Weinke (2000), and Oklahoma's Jason White (2003). All of them played for teams that were ranked at or near the top of college football at the time they won the award. None proved to be effective pros. Their inability to succeed in the NFL doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't great college players. (Ward, for his part, went to the NBA.) But it does seem to indicate that there were probably better players out there when these players picked up their Heisman hardware. 

 

We're fairly certain that Troy Smith is destined to join their ranks. We're also fairly convinced that, by any objective standards, Brady Quinn is more worthy than Troy Smith to be billed as the "Most Outstanding College Football Player in the United States."