Hear Me Out On This One...

Mark Ingram won the Heisman Saturday night.

I have no problem with that.

In what became the closest vote in the stiff-arm's long and illustriously hyped history, this might allow for those pundits who care, to whip up big old batches of OUTRAGE!

Gerhardt's numbers were off the charts!
McCoy's body of work deserved consideration!
Suh was a one-man wrecking crew!
Tebow shouldn't have been knocked for one bad game!

And on and on. Whatever. All fine college players. A few of them might even be good pros.

The problem with the Heisman, is the hype. Plain and simple.

The award, is a BACKS award. Period. Quarter and running.

Aside from three blips in the last 60 years (Charles Woodson who played a dabble of offense to help him out, Tim Brown the Golden Domer, and Desmond Howard who had the balls to actually pose for the thing like he was begging)it's been all quarter and running.

So really, the award doesn't deserve any media elevation than say the Butkus, the Outland, or the Nagurski.

But hyped, it still gets.

So to fix this bit of silliness, we need to do one of two things.

Either "demote" the Heisman to just another award ("Backs only, please!") or make another one.

Yeah, a Defensive Heisman.

Why the hell not? If you think about it, it makes perfect bookend sense. You can go back through the years and pick a defensive legend and a pose that is worthy of the trophy. You can invite 10 players to the party each December in New York City.

And then you can have a more rational debate about the merits of players on each side of the ball. As it stands now, there's no way a bunch of sportswriters (or even the former winners) can decide if Suh was better than Ingram.

I think it would be cool. Most people I've run this past, think I am advocating something akin to a "second Christmas" in July.

Come on, you traditionalists. When you look at the HYPE-sman's history, you will have to admit, that we make way too big a deal of this thing.