No Luck is bad luck

PROGRAMMING NOTE: Scott Reiss will be in New York for comprehensive coverage of the awarding of the Heisman Trophy. Follow all the news on SportsNet Central.This Heisman vote is a sham.And before you go accusing the Stanford guy of being a homer, let me state for the record: Robert Griffin III is a deserving Heisman candidate. Hes an electrifying player who has had an incredible season. But if RG3 wins, it will be for two reasons: one good, one ridiculous.The good is obvious: 4,000 passing yards, 36 touchdowns and just six interceptions. Nine more touchdowns rushing. The ridiculous (and the sham part): The Big 12 had no championship game.Stay with me here. If the Big 12 had a title game, as it did in previous years, Baylor -- which was in the South Division with Oklahoma State -- would not have played in that game. Which means the Bears would have finished their season a week ago. Like Stanford. Like Alabama. And Griffins performance against Texas -- though quite nice -- simply would have been considered a draw with Lucks four-TD effort against Notre Dame and Richardsons 200-plus yards against Auburn.
But because RG3 got to show off his stuff against a mediocre Texas team on Championship Saturday, he got the closing argument. Last change. Final at bat. Pick your metaphor. And again, his team was simply playing a regular-season game.There are two Heisman tracking polls which are considered to be most accurate in predicting the ultimate winner. Prior to Saturday, one had Richardson over Luck by a hair, with Griffin third; the other had Luck over Griffin and Richardson by more than a hair. Yet RG3 was able to completely turn the tide (no pun intended) on the national stage.This is the same phenomenon that occurred in 2009, when Stanford's Toby Gerhart lost out to Alabama's Mark Ingram. Alabama played on the final Saturday, Ingram went for 100-plus yards and three scores, and the tide turned (OK, this time I meant it). Gerhart, by the way, rushed for 200-plus and three scores the week before against Notre Dame. But how can voters be expected to think back that far?Gerharts numbers -- at the same position -- were superior to Ingrams in every way -- by a lot. And dont give me the but Ingram played in the SEC baloney. There were statistical algorithms which accounted for the tougher competition, and Toby still had superior numbers. The result? Ingram by 28 points, the closest vote in Heisman history. You dont think the recency effect (and the fact that Stanford didnt promote its guy at all -- but thats another gripe) might have accounted for that slimmest of margins? Without question it sunk Gerhart, and it might well sink his former teammate.The only silver lining here -- if youre a disgruntled Stanford fan who cringes at the thought of another Alabama running back beating out a Cardinal for the award -- is that this time around, the 'Bama guy is in the same boat. Wisconsin's Montee Ball went nuts in the Big Ten Championship game and surely convinced a bevvy of voters (and rightly so, I would add) that he is, in fact, the best running back in America. The numbers certainly support it (Ball 1,759 yards, 6.4 yardscarry, 32 rushing TDsRichardson 1,583-6.0-20 not even close!), and the recency effect clinches it.The difference between Ball and Griffin is simple: Montee was (unjustly) barely on the grid prior to Saturday; Griffin was already a legit contender. By the way, lest anyone dare try to use my logic against me and argue that, by way of the Ball-Richardson theory, Griffin is more deserving than Luck because his numbers are better, slow your roll (did I really just type that?). The better stats argument is fine for running backs. Quarterbacks need to be evaluated on a completely different level, as there are so many intangibles that come into play. Fortunately, I dont need to make the Luck intangibles argument. David Shaw did a fine job of that last week.So when the announcement is made in Manhattan this coming Saturday, let nothing surprise you. Luck could still win. Richardson could still win. Or Baylor might indeed have its first ever Heisman recipient. And if the latter happens, at least youll know why.