A break from politics … or is it? | Columnists

With all of the pontificating about politics this year, here’s something that is hopefully a refreshing change of pace. Something totally unrelated and insignificant compared to this election in which our sacred democracy was saved since the majority had the audacity to vote for the candidate of their choice rather than the cultural elite’s “chosen one.” 

In another life, as sports editor at The Vicksburg Post, I had the honor of being one of our state’s five Heisman Trophy voters. Ballots were due in early December. But by the first week of November, I could count on getting a call from state Heisman chairman Stan Torgerson asking why I hadn’t submitted by ballot yet.

I would always offer the same explanation: “Mr. Torgerson, there are too many big games left. I can’t make a decision until I see how the top players perform when the pressure is on and the stakes are at their highest.”

Sports fans get that, I know, and so did Mr. Torgerson, God rest his soul. He was just doing his job, trying to make sure that the voters he was responsible for maintained his record of 100 percent participation in the process — a point he was very proud of. 

But I was trying to fill my role responsibly, too, by being as informed as possible before filling out my ballot. I took it seriously, which is why I butted heads a bit with one of the most revered sports personalities in the state. 

Some voters find a frontrunner in their region, and they’re going to vote for him no matter what. They might as well turn in their ballots in October. Nothing that happens during the season is going to change their mind. They’re homers, and that’s it, even if someone in a rival region is irrefutably superior. But if their guy suffers some sort of serious injury midway through the season — a torn ligament or, heaven forbid, a devastating brain injury — that vote is going to look ridiculous to the rest of the country. It takes away from a candidate who is worthy of the honor of the greatest individual award in all of sports and all that it represents.

Some voters feel pressured by the people around them. They realize deep down that someone else may be a better player, but they want to endear themselves to others, so they just stick with the crowd and vote accordingly.

Some voters weren’t informed enough to make a good decision. And that wasn’t necessarily their fault. After all, they had their own games to cover, then they had to scramble to write that story and a notes package on deadline. That doesn’t leave much time to tend to family duties and to watch other games. 

Not being able to see entire games makes it tough for a voter to see the true value and contributions of a candidate. There are so many variables — making a big play when it’s needed most, situation awareness, attitude, etc. — that tell so much that a stat line doesn’t. That’s important stuff when it comes to picking the best player.

Still, most of us were dependent on the highlights and recaps that were presented by the sports media on the Sunday shows. We saw what they wanted us to see. And many of the “experts” on the panel pushed the candidate that they thought was most deserving. A few would even come right out and say which candidate they were voting for.

Naturally, the voters at home heard that and assumed that these talking heads on TV were a lot more informed and had a lot more expertise than they did, so too many voters made their decision based on that commentary and continued promotion from minds perceived to be greater than their own. You can’t blame them for that. After all, we entrust experts to handle so many other aspects of our lives, why not this one, too? Just find one you trust and take his advice. Easy enough. Then if it turns out to be a bad choice, blame him. Or you can listen to him rationalize that bad choice week after week and just parrot his talking points. Even better.

The influence of the Sports Establishment in moving the needle on balloting can’t be underestimated. Not only can the sports anchors choose the highlights and top plays and push certain candidates — in subtle and not-so-subtle ways — many of the pundits and commentators are compromised. If there’s a candidate from their alma mater, they openly campaign for him and may even resort to making up reasons not to vote for the others. After all, if his alma mater has a Heisman winner, that will help with recruiting in the future, plus it will make him real popular at alumni events. That power pays off in plenty of ways, plus it’s intoxicating. Can’t blame the guy for being human and loyal.

Sometimes the people in these positions start pushing for certain candidates, not necessarily because of their qualifications, but to rectify perceived past injustices. That happened the year of the most memorable election I was involved in. Peyton Manning was one of the greatest quarterbacks in the history of college football. He returned to Tennessee for his senior year — even though he would have been the first draft pick after his junior year — and put up staggering statistics while winning. 

But rather than celebrate the statement that Manning made by returning to the play for the Vols another year, members of the Sports Establishment pushed a single message throughout the second half of the season — “It’s time for a defensive player to win the Heisman!” 

Voters couldn’t resist their chance to make history, and in 1997, they helped Charles Woodson break the glass ceiling. Justice was served — at least for those who were pulling for the “D.” But that “justice” for Woodson was perhaps the greatest injustice in Heisman history for Manning. He worked harder and studied film longer than anyone — and his leadership and ability led to success for everybody on his team, regardless of race or social status as they all worked together for the common goal of winning together. But Peyton was perceived as “privileged,” so that made it OK.

I did my part by voting for Manning, and as it turned out, that wasn’t the first time I voted for the guy who didn’t win. If memory serves, I voted for the winner only twice, maybe three times in six years. (If I look it up, I’ll wind up going down an internet rabbit hole.) I’m proud of that record, because I always voted for the player I believed was deserving — even Warrick Dunn (5th place, 1996) — regardless of outside influences. Had I been there in 1994, I would have voted for Steve McNair — not to right past injustices against smaller schools, but because he earned it.

This year’s popular pick among influencers is Colorado two-way player Travis Hunter, whose program and coach are Prime examples of all that’s wrong with college football now … but that’s not his fault and voters shouldn’t hold that against him. He’s an amazing athlete. There’s also a push for Boise State running back Ashton Jeanty, who plays most of his games in a time zone where many voters never see him for a school that has big-time credentials but still has an outsider’s reputation with traditionalists. He would be the first Heisman winner of the modern era from a program without a powerhouse pedigree. 

I make it a point to not listen to sports pundits, but I’m positive there will be some passionate sales jobs for candidates going on in broadcast booths this weekend, pushing to pick someone who will be a “first.” Voters always seem to get caught up in that, too, wanting to have a hand in making history more than they consider making the best choice based on merit. Either of the two favorites would meet that criteria, so that will make this vote interesting. The guess here is that Hunter will win the Heisman — and Neon Deion will bask in the limelight and humble-brag his way into taking credit as his shameless crew of spotlight-seeking hangers-on mindlessly fold their arms, bobble their heads and stare at the cameras — if you can tell where they’re looking from behind their shades. 

But if I still had a ballot, it would go for Jeanty, because he’s an old-school overachiever who has stayed at the school he signed with and has helped carry it to a No. 11 ranking rather than taking his talents to a traditional powerhouse with more prestige — and more NIL money.

Both Hunter and Jeanty were playing at the same time early Friday (after this column was written), in front of larger-than-usual TV audiences, so those performances could be pivotal in deciding which player takes the trophy. And you’d better believe that plenty of block-head influencers will be blundering through the English language as they bloviate about who’s going to be on their ballot and why.

Fortunately, the Heisman committee put an end to the early voting. Starting in 2009, ballots began going out at the end of November or beginning of December and have to be cast just before the weekend of the Heisman-presentation ceremony. That’s the way it should be.

Since there aren’t many Heisman voters, electronic voting is easy to track. But if cybersecurity ever became a concern, there’s no doubt that Heisman voters would agree to hand-deliver their ballots to their chairman — a “polling place,” if you will — on a designated day at the end of the season. After all, it’s an important responsibility — a privilege — to be a Heisman voter. Only those who are willing to make the effort to cast a ballot should be allowed to do so. That helps make sure that the people who are dedicated to democracy get to make the decision. And though it’s not foolproof, it lends credibility to the process and produces winners we can believe were fairly elected.

Isn’t it refreshing to read something that doesn’t have to do with politics?