Luck is still the best bet for the Heisman

So maybe I’m on drugs. But am I the only sports fan out there that still thinks that Andrew Luck is the best bet for the Heisman?

It’s incredible how a one loss can make a QB lose “so much ground” in the race for college football’s most coveted prize. Not to say that Luck being a quarterback should secure him the trophy. Or that being NFL-bound should draw him more votes.

But the kid is still the best bet to win. At least, in this little sportswriter’s mind.

What might be most impressive about Luck is that he calls plays. And according to SFGate writer Tom Fitzgerald, no college QB “has done that in decades.” Luck has been calling the plays for Stanford’s offense since the forth game of the season, giving him an 8-1 record as a shot-caller. It’s a skill that sets him aside from the likes of competitor Robert Griffin III from Baylor.

Actually, it sets him aside from anyone else in this year’s Heisman race.

How it is that sports poll-ers think that Luck has competition in Alabama running back Trent Richardson is beyond me. There is this assumption that Richardson is running the ball against “really tough” SEC defenses. Au contrare, the allusion of tough defenses is in place to make up for inadequate offenses. (Yeah, I said it, his SEC competitors have inadequate offenses.) Richardson might be a good running back, but would he still be on the Heisman committee’s lips if he didn’t play for a team with a high BCS ranking?

News flash sport-os: Stanford and Alabama have the same win-loss record. And Stanford won’t put you to sleep with multiple scoreless quarters when you watch them on Saturday.

Of course, it would be pretty ironic if Luck didn’t win the award, and then went off to the NFL to play back-up for Peyton Manning, a modern QB titan that lost the Heisman his senior year.

Except Peyton lost to Charles Woodson. And I’m not seeing anyone of Woodson’s caliber in the current Heisman race.