This one was rather obvious. So the best overall quarterback in college football didn't win the award meant to highlight the best QB/RB in college football two years running? Heisman does what it does.
Cam Newton and Robert Griffin III had more individual highlights, so they ended up with the award. Newton had a spectacular season in Auburn, but it's not like he won that national championship on his own, Nick Fairley and Michael Dyer had their fair share of moments and were just as integral to keeping Auburn in many of those games. RGIII put up spectacular numbers and led Baylor to their best season in recent history, but he also got held in check by teams like Kansas State and Texas A&M, so I'm not sure how to feel about how worthy his candidacy either in terms of rewarding the QB who performed the best.
It's a gaping difference for Stanford without Luck. Even with maulers like David DeCastro up front and linebacking talent like Shayne Skov and Chase Thomas, the Cardinal become a very limited team with an assortment of talent few quarterbacks can wield successfully. Without Luck, Stanford is a middling Pac-12 team with a good run attack and defense but no real passing game to speak of. They're definitely not nearly as dangerous to anyone except the more finesse defenses out there.
Guess Luck will just have to hang on and hope for a trajectory similar to his model guy in Peyton Manning. That Heisman always seems to be a death sentence for college quarterbacks anyway, might as well go for NFL MVPs instead.
This post was sponsored by EA Sports NCAA Football 13. Check out the video for the game below.
EA SPORTS NCAA Football 13 TV: "Son" (via EASPORTS)