Olin said some things that were ok in his latest mailbag, but then there was this intelligent line:
No primarily defensive player won the Heisman until Michigan cornerback Charles Woodson did in 1997. That season, I voted for Tennessee quarterback Peyton Manning, who was denied mainly because the Volunteers lost to Florida for the fourth time in a row.
Riiiiiiight, Olin. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Woodson was the better football player. Not only that, but never beating your arch-rival (let alone playing horribly against them) has absolutely zero bearing on determining how great you are as a player? Well done Olin, well done. Woodson not only was the superior football player (go watch his hightlights again if you need to) but in his heisman winning season he played a key role in vanquishing his team's arch-rival, something Peyton failed miserably at. While there's no denying that Peyton was very good, there is no way he deserved it more than Woodson. I'm sure there are many of you on here that have better arguments than I on this topic, but I just couldn't believe that Olin would paint it as "Peyton lost the heisman, Woodson didn't win it".