Why Trent Richardson will win the Heisman tonight

A quick look at the last 15 Heisman trophy winners reveals a bunch of clear-cut patterns. Before generalizing, let's look at the empirical data:

Num	Year	Name	School	Position	Class	Points
1	1996	Danny Wuerffel	Florida	QB	Sr	1,363
2	1997	Charles Woodson	Michigan	CB	Jr	1,815
3	1998	Ricky Williams	Texas	RB	Sr	2,355
4	1999	Ron Dayne	Wisconsin	RB	Sr	2,042
5	2000	Chris Weinke	Florida State	QB	Sr	1,628
6	2001	Eric Crouch	Nebrska	QB	Sr	770
7	2002	Carson Palmer	USC	QB	Sr	1,328
8	2003	Jason White	Oklahoma	QB	Jr	1,481
9	2004	Matt Leinart	USC	QB	jr	1,325
10	2005	Reggie Bush	USC	RB	Jr	2,541
11	2006	Troy Smith	Ohio State	QB	Sr	2,540
12	2007	Tim Tebow	Florida	QB	Soph	1,957
13	2008	Sam Bradford	Oklahoma	QB	Soph	1,726
14	2009	Mark Ingram	Alabama	RB	Soph	1,304
15	2010	Cam Newton	Auburn	QB	Jr	2,263

After carefully reviewing this data, let's generalize:

1. You have to play offense. Even Charles Woodson played WR and caught passes from Tom Brady at Michigan. He would openly tell you that he never would have won the award if didn't play offense.
2. You must come from a major, major brand-name college to win the award. Guys from Fresno State and Alcorn State don't win the Heisman. It doesn't matter if they go on to become #1 and #3 overall picks in the NFL Draft. You don't win the Heisman if you are from a non-Fortune 25 program.
3. Your perennial top 25 program better be playing for the national championship, or you are not going to win the Heisman. There are a few exceptions on this list, but very few. Charles Woodson, in particular, won the award because he was Michigan's clear-cut MVP in the year they won the Championship. Tim Tebow is a major exception, but he was in-between two national championships at the time. He was also the clear-cut MVP of that program.
4. You better be the MVP of that #1 or #2 ranked team, or you are not going to win the Heisman. Just about every name on that list is the clear-cut MVP of his program.
5. You had better be a QB or an RB, or you are not going to win the award. Charles Woodson is the only exception to this rule, but he is the most exceptional winner of all-time, and everybody knows it.

As I stated in my last blog entry, Trent Richardson is the only guy who fits the suit. Nobody else on the list of contenders fits the suit. Ergo Richardson must be the projected winner of the award.

I have no idea why odds-makers have made Robert Griffin III the favorite to win the award. I guess this is because Las Vegas was built on losers, not on winners. The objective of the handicapper is not to pick the winner, but to trick you into betting on the loser. As far as I am concerned, Robert Griffin is an instant replay of the Steve McNair story. Nobody put up more impressive numbers than McNair. McNair went on to become the #3 pick in the draft. He did not win the Heisman.

Is Baylor really that kind of a small-time program? Compared to Alabama? Absolutely! No doubt about it. Baylor is not a perennial top 25 program. Quite frankly, they aren't even close. Baylor is not playing for the national title this year. Quite frankly, they aren't even close. Robert Griffin has two major strikes against him. Trent Richardson does not.

My buddy Rico, who happens to be a Libra, objected to this line of reasoning. He declared that this just wasn't fair. Such a statement would indicate that

1. Defensive players & lineman can't win the award
2. Kids from small schools can't win the award
3. Great performers who aren't the MVP of their squad can't win.
4. You win because of your program, not your own merits.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. That is what it is. These facts are clearly evident in the data. This is the empirical fact.

"That just isn't fair!" I ain't saying it's fair. I'm saying this is the fact of the matter.

My friends, this is a moment for an object lesson in Astrology. Rico is a Libra. Contrary to popular notions, Virgo is not the great perfectionist of the Zodiac. Libra is. Like all earth signs, we Virgos are concrete, pragmatic, factual, logical, evidence-based critters. We reason from the material facts to the conclusion, not from an abstract notion of what is fair or lovely or beautiful or nice to an idealized notion of perfect reality.

The air-critters go from the abstract vision of what is fair, lovely, beautiful, nice, and well-balanced to an idealized notion of what should be. They do this like crazy. Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius all do this on a routine basis. None more than Libra. This is one of the reasons why earth and air people don't communicate well. Their reasoning methodologies are just too different.

Colin Cowherd is famous for saying "Fair doesn't exist. It's not a part of real life. Get over it." You can hear the screams of air people as he says that. You can hear a Virgo like me chuckling, because I know the air people are screaming. It should be noted that Cowherd is a major college football fan, and also a Capricorn brother. That means he's an earth boy, like me. Capricorns are concrete, pragmatic, factual, evidence-based critters also.

The truth is where the evidence leads us, not where we would like it to be. Too bad, really. Life sucks in the real world, then you die.

One interesting fact: Charles Woodson happens to be a Libra, and he broke a couple of the empirical patterns. Not bad... Interesting.