All you guys who haven't mastered reading comprehension might want to go back and digest the Heisman criteria a bit more. JMHO.

But since I know you probably won't, here are some additional points and questions to ponder:

1. Should the voting be based on talent and ability? Or production? What about lack of "negative" stats? Emphasis on team wins and losses? Or division/conference/national championships? I think you can make arguments for all of these. Can you name any single player - it doesn't automatically have to be a quarterback - who is at or above his peers in all of these categories?

2.Do you think that "opportunity" should be factored in? For instance... some quarterbacks will get many more opportunities to build stats based on their scheduled competition. Some have coaches who LIKE to run up the score whenever possible when the game is truly no longer in doubt. Some teams have to play certain players longer than they'd want because they don't have much depth otherwise. Many teams are one-dimensional in nature and don't run balanced offenses. Should a particular player be penalized in these situations? Particularly if he has a history of truly excelling for what he is called upon to do, and in as many situations as he can?

3. What about the title "game manager"? Do you think this is a negative or a positive if the games he manages are... wins and NO ONE can match his record in the win-loss column? Are there any other leadership or intangibles that should count towards swaying the Heisman voters opinions?

Thanks for taking time to read, those of you who have an attention span longer than a humping ferret. Rock on.