What role does "character" play into the Heisman selection?
All the Cam Newton allegations got me thinking - at what point do off the field incidents take you out of Heisman contention? Is character a stated requirement?
Clearly, off the field issues can matter at some point (see Reggie Bush). Do the off the field issues have to be so serious that they destroy a person's eligibility to play in games to kill a person's Heisman chances/award? I was trying to think of an instance where a clearly more talented player was passed over for the explicit reason of characted but can't think of anyone.
NOTE: this is not a thread to condemn Newton for the allegations against him; he is innocent until proven otherwise (other than laptop stealing). I'm of the personal opinion that we should be very careful in who we select because these guys become the face of college football, role models for tons and tons of kids, etc. But that's neither here nor there.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:11 AM ^
If anything, it'll cause the voters to think twice about selecting Newton given the recent Reggie Bush fiasco.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:24 AM ^
I had heard somewhere (not sure where) that if there's even a whiff of impropriety with Newton, the Heisman committee will stay away given the lingering embarrassment of the Bush scandal.
Off the Heisman trust's website [emphasis mine]:
The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity.
I guess you could argue that "with integrity" is meant to imply character, but I'd guess that it's more just lip service to sportsmanship and basically translates to "don't get caught taking boat loads of money."
EDIT: Updated with Heisman trust quote.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:20 AM ^
Almost zero, and it shouldn't unless he broke the rules applying to winning the Hesiman. It's about who the best football player is, not who the nicest good football player is.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:52 AM ^
It really is about choosing the face of college football; a spokesman for the entire product. If I had kids I wouldn't want them looking up to a thief or someone that beats his girlfriend or whatever. If you think it doesn't matter, ask the numerous frustrated peewee football coaches that are dealing with players running around with purposefully untied shoes. Kids emulate the top cfb players. I don't like Tebow at all but I'd much rather someone like him win than someone like LaMichael or Newton.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
I don't like the idea any more than you do, but in this situation, the award is being given for supposedly being the best college football player. Being a great guy doesn't help you accumulate stats, and being a jerk doesn't hinder you (at least not directly).
Maybe there's some verbiage in the Heisman description that says voters should take character into account, but I haven't heard of it. Also, voters don't actually know the players personally most of the time. If we tell the voters to consider a player's personality we dock the players that haven't done anything wrong but are just really cocky. (A lot of people who don't know Tate might say he sounded really cocky last year... would you want him missing out on the Heisman just because of that?)
November 9th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
there is language re: "integrity" for the award, so there's that. Also, when I say "character" I mean arrests and similar stuff, not being cocky. I think off the field issues, whether they are arrests or game suspensions for "violation of team rules" or academic probation should factor in to the decision, though not disqualify a player until the issues become egregious. Whether beating up your gf or stealing laptops is "egregious" is also a matter of opinion.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
If that's in there, then I agree wholeheartedly.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:20 AM ^
November 9th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
Integrity. The cool STD.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
I mean, aside from possibly getting drunk and a misstatement or two involving the bizarre use of the word "everybody," he seems to have performed with integrity. Or does this photo indicating that he possibly engaged in underage drinking (when he was underage) reflect that he is a very bad man? Or is it just the girl next to him? What's this photo supposed to be saying?
November 9th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
You're looking for complexity and rationality where none is intended.
It's just saying he's a douche.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
Ah. OK.
A "douche" he certainly seems to be. I just didn't get what he'd done to be considered someone of low integrity.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:20 AM ^
Probably similar to the role intelligence level plays when picking up chicks at the bar.
The Heisman might like to think it's all high and mighty, but just like in most other things, character doesn't sell nearly as well as stats.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
Considering the Heisman trust has no winner for 2005 due to Character issues, I think it plays an even bigger role in future votes. Sadly though, I wish it played more of a role. If Character is factored in, Denard's stock rises back to top 2.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
Well they gave the award to Troy Smith, but then no Ohio State player ever got into trouble...
November 9th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
Ask Tim Tebow.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
Not much, but it has to play more of a role after the Reggie Bush incident.
Still, if you were a Heisman voter - how could you say one kid has character that the other does not? We've all made mistakes in our day. There is no database for "character" that these people can just go and check.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^
besmirched. If Newton is the runaway obvious winner stats- and accomplishment-wise; and if strongly incriminating evidence becomes public (is in some way confirmed) this could be an interesting year for the award.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
The guy who gets the most publicity will win the Heisman. If you can get more publicity with character, then it might play a role, but you have to be in the race to begin with. ESPN doesn't talk about good things people do, they only talk about controversy, so good luck with trying to get publicity using character.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
Not much in the past but they have to be thinking about it after Bush. It has to be a consideration with Newton, maybe not spoken but voters are aware.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
After I think of bush, I can't focus on much of anything, let alone character.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
Troy Smith won it, right? Character means absolutely nothing.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
I don't think they care about character per se, but they do want to make sure that whoever gets it gets to keep it. After the Bush Debacle, the Heisman Trust will make sure that nobody with a remote chance of being found ineligible down the road will recieve the award. They will become complacent again after a few years, but I can't imagine Newton, who is the "obvious" subject of this post, getting the award unless this gets resolved in his favor before the vote.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
As the myths that uphold college football amateurism buckle under the sheer weight of the gobs and gobs of money involved, those whose profits hinge on the amateurism and "character" facades of college sport have to double down. Also, it gives lazy sports writers easy fodder to tut-tut about lapsed values and to find villains and heroes among the players. No way Cam Newton wins the (Nissan) Heisman trophy this year now. If it were ten years ago, or twenty, and Auburn kept up their pace, he'd win it in a walk.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
The Heisman is a political campaign. By the end of the year, one offensive player whose team is in the top ten and from a big conference will be the "Republican" candidate, and another will be the "Democratic" candidate. These will be the only two serious contenders, as the media will have dubbed them so. Any player who doesn't fit the above criteria, especially the media part, is akin to a third party candidate and has already lost. At this point, whichever of the two has the best campaign will win. Usually it comes down to merit by now, but not always.
Anyway, my point is, nothing matters unless the media says it does.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^
As others have noted, I don't think the Heisman committee will care unless there is a strong whiff of possible ineligibility surrounding Newton. After the Bush fiasco, nobody wants the embarrassment of Newton being deemed ineligible and having to return the trophy. This probably opens the door rather widely for LaMichael James to be the front-runner, with guys like Denard in a tier below with the potential to jump ahead with some solid performances. Right now, though, Newton is (and probably should remain) the front-runner.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^
I don't think the people that vote on this will factor "character" in to any great degree. It isn't a small committee - voting is a lot of writers, media types. I'm guessing Newton is the most likely winner and they will have to deal with any fallout. Two problems in a couple of years and it starts looking bad.
November 10th, 2010 at 8:27 AM ^
on the front page of SI.com right now..
November 10th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
just became a whole lot more relevant.