Heisman Trophy candidate Cam Newton, quarterback for Auburn, speaks to reporters during a news conference on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 in New York. (AP Photo/Andrew Burton)SEATTLE - Back in the day, the Heisman Trophy vote used to be easy. You tossed a candidate into your mental Cuisinart, factored in his impact, how his team did and maybe allowed for a smidge of character assessment, and sent your ballot to New York.
Suddenly, things changed. And not because it's all done electronically.
The debate over Cam Newton altered everything. Now we're baseball writers, voting for the Hall of Fame, wrestling with whether players connected to steroids belong in Cooperstown.
A few weeks ago, indulging my contrarian side, I decided to opt for Andrew Luck of Stanford. He's had a magnificent season on a team that's just a breath away from the Oregon-Auburn echelon, and if anybody wants to assail that logic, how can you fault going with the guy assumed to be the No. 1 choice in the next NFL draft?
About then, the muck around Newton, the Auburn quarterback, was thickening - the shopping by his father of the son's talents to Mississippi State, the leaks at Florida of his supposed academic malfeasance. And we already knew about Newton's theft of a laptop while at Florida, before he left for Blinn Junior College.
That made picking Luck easier. For a while, at least.
But this was a race that evaded the easy conclusion. Perhaps the intense scrutiny of Newton even helped his case; it helped crystallize the debate.
As murky as the water is around Cecil Newton's pimping his son in the SEC, and as hard as it might be to picture Cam Newton not knowing it (and that he ends up at Auburn without so much as a hint of an NCAA indiscretion), I don't think you can withhold a Heisman vote on the inference of cheating.
Forget the Reggie Bush saga here. Surely nobody expects voters to be so prescient as to foretell what might happen once the NCAA does more than go through the drive-through window on the Newton issue. As much as I don't want to vote for a guy who gets the trophy stripped, I really don't want to presume Newton's guilt.
But then, there's a troublesome word in the Heisman trust's mission statement: We're supposed to factor "integrity" into the selection. If you're inclined not to vote for Newton, there's your opening. While there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding him, one thing we do know about is the pilfered laptop at Florida.
Ultimately, I concluded "integrity" to be such a sweeping description as to render it hard to be the pivot point on a conclusion. Even if you can define integrity, we're not instructed as to how deeply it's supposed to influence the vote.
Then Nov. 26 happened: Auburn at Alabama. The Tigers fell behind 24-0. They were done, down four scores essentially, on the field of their old rival 'Bama. This wasn't Middle Tennessee State, it was the Tide.
Of course, Newton led Auburn back to a 28-27 victory for the ages that rescued a spot in the national-title game.
That was a staggering win, one that seemed to shove to the background the sideshow over him.
He's eligible, he's playing, he rushed for an SEC-quarterbacks record of 1,409 yards and he led the nation in pass efficiency. Three hours before the deadline, I voted for him.
I went with Luck as No. 2. He was, and will be, ridiculously good. No doubt, he's giving his offensive line its due, because he was sacked only five times, helping result in his crazy, 8.6-yards-per-carry average.
No. 3 is Kellen Moore, the Boise State quarterback. Enjoy Times Square, kid. You're a long way from Prosser, where nobody in the Pac-10 recruited you seriously.
Do I feel good about it all? Not even close. In a quarter-century of voting, it's the most conflicted ballot I've ever cast.
***
Paschall's ballot
Waiting until the last possible moment to vote for the Heisman Trophy is among the most prudent things we can do.
It made sense during last year's tight race because four of the five finalists played on December's first Saturday. It made sense this year due to the NCAA's investigation into Auburn quarterback Cam Newton's recruitment.
Newton received my first-place vote and will be a landslide winner after compiling the greatest single season in the sport's history. He has rushed for 1,409 yards, and his pass-efficiency rating of 188.2 is on pace to be the highest in NCAA history (Hawaii's Colt Brennan had a 186.0 rating in 2006).
There have been so many years when Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck, who got my second-place tally, would have won the Heisman with the season he produced. The architectural design student has thrown for 3,051 yards and has completed 70.2 percent of his passes, and he also has rushed for 497 yards and 8.6 yards a carry.
Oregon tailback LaMichael James, the nation's top rusher with 1,682 yards, was third on my ballot.
***
Wiedmer's ballot
Sitting in Florida's Swamp on Sept. 15, 2007, as the Gators put the final touches on a 59-20 victory over Tennessee, I never dreamed that the young quarterback mopping up for Tim Tebow that afternoon would actually become an easier No. 1 Heisman vote than those I cast for Tim Terrific over the years.
But that's just what Cam Newton became this season after leading Auburn to an undefeated record and almost single-handedly landing the Tigers in the BCS national title game.
No single player in college football was more valuable or important to his team than Newton, who's a junior. Without him, the Tigers probably would have finished no better than fourth in the SEC West.
Oregon sophomore running back LaMichael James isn't the only reason the Ducks will face Newton and the Tigers in the BCS title game, but his 21 rushing touchdowns were a big, big reason, so I voted him second.
I spent much of the fall planning to vote Boise State quarterback Kellen Moore second or third. But when Nevada senior quarterback Colin Kaepernick helped upset Boise, I decided a senior witth 20 passing TDs and 20 rushing scores deserved my third vote over a junior who could win the Heisman a year from now.
***
Rucker's ballot
Cam Newton's season was too good - and the allegations surrounding his recruitment weren't proven enough - for me to give my first-place Heisman Trophy vote to anyone else.
If another player had been even somewhat comparable to Newton, I could legitimately use the controversy as a tiebreaker. But Newton was so much better than the rest, and I didn't want to sit back in 10 years and know I didn't vote for him simply out of caution. That would be infinitely tougher for me to stomach than voting for him and later learning that he or his family accepted money.
Tim Tebow was the best college football player I'd ever seen, but not now. Newton is, in my opinion, a superior player. He's bigger, he's faster, he has a stronger arm and he's been at least as accurate with it. He's occasionally been impossible to defend. He's the most dominant college football player I've ever seen.
Auburn would probably have three, four or five losses without Newton.
I could have abstained from submitting my Heisman ballot this season, but I simply couldn't vote for anyone else. Not without better evidence than what we've seen.