Ratto: Hypocritical Heisman voters moralize Newton vs. Luck

Ratto: Hypocritical Heisman voters moralize Newton vs. Luck
December 12, 2010, 8:07 pm
Share This Post

Dec. 12, 2010STANFORDPAGE
The obvious question to be raised from the Heisman Trophy voting is this:If Jim Harbaugh was any good at his job, why does he only produce runners-up?A valid point, we can all agree, as Andrew Luck now follows TobyGerhart as Stanford athletes who got a commemorative keychain and aThanks for clapping for the winner note from the Heisman people.RELATED: Stanford's Luck finishes second in Heisman voting

But other than another rash of stupid media moralizing about CamNewtons worthiness to participate in a corrupted enterprise likecollege football, let alone be saluted as one its finest practitioners,the day went as expected. Newton won because he was so clearly superiorto a very good field, and the voting was laughable.Simply put, if you couldnt see your way clear to voting for Newton,why would you send in a ballot at all unless you truly thought therewere three better players in college football? That would be you twopeople there in the corner.Applying moral standards to anything having to do with collegefootball is always amusing, since it runs so efficiently on thenod-and-a-wink system of player procurement. Those who want to buy shopon certain aisles, though who dont shop on others. It is an unequaland dishonest system that seems to work for everyone.And whether Cam Newton got money or not is almost beside the point, Hewas the best player, and even if you dont think he was the bestplayer, he was certainly not the fourth best player.In short, if you want to protest the system, dont participate in itthat year. Otherwise, stop pretending that youre electing a Pope(which opens up its own can of electoral worms we are not interested inengaging) and using your ballot as a feeble cry for a system that hasnever been and will never be tried in big-time college football. Youreeither in, or youre out, and be comfortable with where you stand.I mean, Andrew Luck will never know how many people thought he was thebest player in the game, as opposed to how many thought he was the bestguy whose father was cleaner than Cecil Newton. Now how much fun isthat for a fella?Ray Ratto is a columnist for Comcast SportsNet Bay Area