Heisman vote expected to be close

Televised awards programs like to manufacture suspense in the moments leading up to the announcement of a winner, but no gimmicks will be needed for Saturday’s Heisman Trophy presentation.

The only certainty is that Texas Tech quarterback Graham Harrell will finish fourth. First, second and third remain guesswork, with Texas quarterback Colt McCoy, Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford and Florida quarterback Tim Tebow in a virtual dead heat — or so it seems based on the conflicting conclusions of the various Heisman polls.

The closest Heisman voting was in 1985, when Bo Jackson edged Chuck Long by 45 votes. This year could challenged that one as the 925 voters, who include media members and former Heisman Trophy winners, struggle over their picks.

The trophy, named for a guy who coached Georgia Tech to a 222-0 victory over Cumberland College, is supposed to go to college football’s best player. But the determining issues are a little more subtle.

Pay no attention to the Maxwell Award presented to Tebow on Thursday. Only twice in the past eight years has the Maxwell winner finished in the top two of the Heisman voting.

Here are the factors that matter:

Be a quarterback: That position has become so critical to a team’s success, it’s difficult for another position to even challenge. A ranking of the nation’s top 10 quarterbacks resembles the rankings of the top 10 teams.

Beneficiary: None

Team success: Just twice in the past 18 years has a Heisman winner not been on a team ranked in the top five on the day the votes were counted. Six of the past eight Heisman winners played in the national championship game. McCoy, Tebow and Bradford play for the top three teams.

Beneficiary: Minuscule edge for Bradford and Tebow.

Statistics: Heisman-winning quarterbacks usually have eye-popping numbers.

Beneficiary: Bradford. His 186.3 passer rating would be an NCAA record, his 48 TD passes lead the nation and his team averaged 54 points a game. Tebow is hurt most. Although his numbers are good, they are not as impressive as last season’s, and that will count against him.

Responsibility for success: Players with a less talented supporting cast get the benefit of the doubt — usually.

Beneficiary: McCoy.

Regional bias: Voters favor players from their own region.

Beneficiary: Tebow, slightly. Bradford and McCoy may have split allegiances in Big 12 territory, but Tebow will own the Southeast.

Televised late-season heroics: This may be the single most important factor. Reggie Bush clinched his 2005 Heisman with dazzling televised runs against Fresno State, and Carson Palmer had the national TV audience to himself when he carved up Notre Dame’s defense in the final game of 2002 to go from Heisman contender to easy Heisman winner.

Beneficiary: Tebow. This hurts McCoy most, because he did not play last weekend. Bradford was impressive in the Big 12 title game, but Oklahoma won that game by halftime with its overall superiority. Tebow led the Gators on a fourth-quarter comeback to beat the No. 1 team in the SEC title game. It was a two-man race between McCoy and Bradford before that game.

Based on those factors, we are predicting a third-place finish for McCoy with Bradford getting a razor-thin win over Tebow.

A Tebow victory would not surprise us a bit, though, which would make him the second player to win the Heisman twice. He is certain to do better than Vic Janowicz and Roger Staubach, neither of whom finished in the top 10 the season following their Heisman year.

Janowicz was a star single-wing tailback at Ohio State in 1950, but Woody Hayes came in the next season and installed the T-formation, greatly diminishing Janowicz’s contributions. Injuries affected Staubach in 1964, when Navy went 3-6-1 and Staubach’s statistics dropped precipitously.