… and I couldn’t be more hesitant than to grab a pen and ink my top three. The deadline to vote is Dec. 5 and, personally, I don’t think any ballots should be allowed before Washington and Hawaii finish up sometime after 2 a.m. Dec. 2.
Since the start of October, I’ve had a short list and it’s been rearranged every week. I think I have a top three and I know I have two of the three and I even have those two ranked. I’m not divulging here — maybe later; maybe — but I think it’s fair to point out what the criteria is, as defined by the Heisman Trophy Trust:
“…selecting the most outstanding college football player in the United States for 2007.”
Beautifully vague, yes?Â Nowhere does it say what is outstanding or how a player’s … oustandingness … is to be evaluated. That, to me, is the bestÂ part about this.Â It’s a completely subjective contest that is based more on a voter’s criteriaÂ than anything else, which I happen to like. Players have an entire seasonÂ to prove their outstandingnessÂ (that “word” isn’t so bad after you hear it a few times) and how they make that impact upon the voters will differ. At the end, though, one player emerges and does so despite the variety of ways people make their votes. To win is to have proved one’s outstandingness across the board, no matter the criteria.
This is all I will say on the matter: This is not like bowl eligibility. Everyone is to be considered at the end of the season, and while I think a player’s candidacy is affected by the team’s success or lack thereof, it’s still an individual award.Â