Based solely on on−field exploits, Auburn quarterback Cam Newton should clearly win this year's Heisman Trophy. There hasn't been this clear−cut of a Heisman frontrunner for as long as I can remember. Sure, Tim Tebow was great in 2007, putting up very similar numbers to Newton this year with more touchdowns and passing yards and fewer rushing yards. A bad defense hamstrung Tebow's Florida Gators to the tune of a 9−4 season, and Heisman winners almost never play for 9−4 teams — even those with a mediocre defense. Auburn's defense has been unable to stop Newton from leading them to a 13−0 season and a spot in the BCS National Championship.
For another comparison, Reggie Bush in 2005 — his trophy since returned — who won with the second−most points and first−place votes ever, turned in a much less impressive season than Newton this year. Bush was impressive, sure, but look at how stacked USC's offense was that season. Heck, Vince Young should have won the 2005 Heisman, but I digress.
As far as competitors this year, only Oregon running back LaMichael James truly has a solid case. But even he has a very good quarterback in Darron Thomas; meanwhile, Newton is basically the extent of Auburn's offense, and given the state of the Tigers' defense, the extent of the whole team. Point is, what Cam's done on the gridiron has more than earned him this year's highest college football honor.
But look at the pesky little prepositional phrase at the end of the Heisman's mission statement: "The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." "With integrity" is not the way any unbiased observer would describe the Cam Newton saga.
As I mentioned in an earlier column, in the past two years, Newton has left Florida under suspicion of academic fraud, transferred to a junior college and transferred again to Auburn, with allegations that his father tried to secure upwards of $100,000 in return for his college commitment. Actually, scratch that, his father admitted that he sought to sell Cam's college commitment. And yet, the NCAA has, for the time being, ruled that Newton is eligible, claiming that because he had no knowledge of this arrangement, he had done nothing wrong. Not only is this claim dubious, the NCAA has even ruled players ineligible in similar cases (see exhibit Damon Stoudamire in 1995).
What happens at the NCAA level seems pretty obvious. Two years from now, it'll find Newton ineligible and void all of Auburn's wins from this season. Except at that point, no one will care anymore. In the meantime, the nation's most dynamic player retains his eligibility, and the NCAA gets a compelling championship game. Without Newton, Auburn would almost definitely have lost one of its last two games, and the NCAA would have gotten an Oregon−Texas Christian national championship game that would have garnered maybe half the television ratings that the actual Oregon−Auburn matchup will.
So what do Heisman voters make of all of this? Honestly, either side is perfectly defensible. Newton supporters can claim that despite his problems, the NCAA has ruled that he is eligible. Plus, his on−field performance is so clearly ahead of the pack, it seems silly to vote for anyone else.
Newton detractors can claim that even if he is currently eligible, he clearly has not gone about his college football career "with integrity." Also, it looks bad for the Heisman Trust to have to potentially rescind two of its trophies in a six−year span. After Bush, the same thing would likely happen if Newton was ruled ineligible in the future. Personally, I would grudgingly cast my first−place vote for Newton and give my second−place vote to the NCAA reinstatement committee that let Newton — for the time being — maintain his eligibility.
--
