Before we launch back into talk of the coming season, I think it’s time to officially amend Heismandment No. 2, which reads:
The winner must be a junior or senior.
As events of the past two seasons have shown, it is now possible for a sophomore to win the trophy.
However, I don’t think it is now as cut-and-dried as we think. Note that both Tim Tebow and Sam Bradford hailed from Heisman powers. Also, both put up seasons that were above and beyond what the average Heisman-winning season entails. Both had seasons for the ages, with Tebow throwing and passing for a combined 55 touchdowns in 2007 and Bradford putting up an NCAA record in passing efficiency to go with 50 touchdown passes.
In other words, these guys weren’t just your average, ordinary sophomores.
So, while the barrier to sophomores winning the Heisman has been battered, it is not yet fully destroyed. All other things being equal, I don’t expect a run-of-the mill sophomore–or freshman–to win the Heisman any time soon with your standard very-good season. For now, juniors and seniors will still maintain the strong advantage, unless it is clear that the underclassman in the race has boldly gone where no player has gone before and, hence, can’t be ignored by Heisman voters.
Therefore, Heismandment No. 2 will now read: Juniors and seniors have the overwhelming advantage in the Heisman race and, as a general rule, will win over an underclassman. But a sophomore from a traditional power who puts up extraordinary single-season numbers can’t be discounted.
Also, its important to note that Bradford is actually a redshirt sophomore, which makes him technically a junior. Tebow, I believe, was in his second year when he won the trophy, making him the only true sophomore to win the trophy. You might be jumping the gun with this amendment.
Whether he is a third year sophomore or a second year sophomore, he has still only been eligible to play in games for 2 years. You are not jumping the gun, in fact you should have made the amendment after Tebow won. By the way, how does the amended Heismandment actually read?
One thing I don’t know has been discussed here before: I live in the heart of SEC country and I’ve noticed a somewhat troubling practice that is going from exceptional to common. Parents here are holding their children, especially boys, back from starting school at the traditional age 5. The stated reason is generally that Johnny lacks the maturity to succeed in school but often the real reason is that the parents want their kids to be more physically mature when they reach high school so they can excel in sports. Consequently these kids will be older when they start their freshman years. Have we started to notice an increase in the age of incoming freshman football recruits? If so I might expect Heismandment #2 to be further stretched.
So, did you amend #2? What is the new version of #2?