I completely understand the love for Andrew Luck and I think he is an incredible player. However, there is no way that he should finish ahead of Robert Griffin III in the Heisman race The Heisman was touted as Luck''s award from the the beginning of the season, but show me what he has done to earn it over RGIII. RGIII's numbers are better, and not just a little better and he did it against a more difficult schedule.
Robert has thrown for nearly 850 more yards (3998 to Luck's 3170), a higher completion percentage (72.6% to 70%) , a higher passing efficiency rating (192.31 to 167.5), less INTS (6 to 9), and more TDS (36 to 35). Let's not forget RGIII also rushed for more than 600 yds and another 9 TDs. RGIII played better down the stretch and better on the big stage. Seven of the Cardinals eleven wins came against teams with a losing record. Only three of Baylor's nine wins came against teams with a losing record. Even in Baylor's losses, Griffin played well, throwing for 1,202 yds, 9 TDs, but he did have the 4 INTs. In Stanford's lone loss, a shellacking at HOME to Oregon (RGIII and the Bears were 7-0 at home), Luck threw for a pedestrian 256 yds, 3 TDs, 2 INTs and had a fumble. Compare that to RGIII throwing for 479 yds and 4 TDs and 76 rushing yds against OU. RGIII is one of only three people to ever throw for 10,000 yds and rush for 2,000 in a collegiate career. I know the Heisman is not suppose to be about a player's career, but its not suppose to be who is considered the better pro-prospect either. It's also not about who is the best player on the best team (read, Trent Richardson, who actually will probably win the Heisman). The Heisman is about the most outstanding player, and what is more outstanding than what RGIII has achieved at Baylor THIS season?
Two rhetorical questions for you to consider: If Luck played for Baylor, would the Bears have won 9 games or more? If RGIII played for Stanford, would they be going to a BCS bowl or the National Title?