🏈 The Heisman Foundation now has over 900 voting members as I understand. I've long thought, "too many."

[TerryP]

I'd bet we've all entertained the question, "why do they have a vote" in one form or another. A smaller voting block? I'm all for that move.

It's my thought the voters should be restricted to only those who were finalist.

Your thoughts

 

[Bamabww]

Yep, I agree with a smaller voting block. I'm not sure who should vote but only those who were a finalist is a good start.

I've also thought that those that vote before the last game is finished should be removed from the voting block.

 

[OldPlayer]

Many of those who were a finalist are dead. The number of finalists has varied from year to year.. Sometimes they have three,, sometimes four and a few fives. Then you have the finalists who will tend to vote for the player from their team or against a rival.

I don't know what the criteria to vote is, but it should be more than former finalists.

 

[UAgrad93]

Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I think you too it off at around 500, including previous Heisman winners. I think “term limits” wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Cycle people on and off every 3-4 years. Keep the eyes fresh and go back to what the trophy meant originally.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Welll...Heisman winners should carry a bigger impact...
Not all...but...more than the rest...
So...
Heisman winner ... vote counts times 3x
Heisman finalist...vote counts times 2X

the others ...1X

or something...?

 

[TerryP]

Many of those who were a finalist are dead. The number of finalists has varied from year to year.. Sometimes they have three,, sometimes four and a few fives. Then you have the finalists who will tend to vote for the player from their team or against a rival.

Part of this I see as irrelevant. Yes, every year we're going to have a few pass away just as every year we're going to have three or four added. The total of voters shouldn't vary that much year to year.

Yes, we might see some former winners vote for their former team and its finalist. I'd say there's a smaller chance they vote with their former teams' member versus how we've seen other voters outside of the finalist vote. Does the term "regional bias" come to mind? Is that from players, or the voting media? It's the latter in my view. (How many votes in Florida put Trask as #1 because that's who they've been covering??

I don't know what the criteria to vote is, but it should be more than former finalists.

Criteria?

The country is divided into six regions with 145 per region. There is a rep for every region that selects who votes. If one state is larger than another, that state gets more votes. They are "related" to the sport, to a degree, with the vast majority being the media.

Ask yourself this question. Who do you think would vote with the least amount of bias? And by that I mean, who do you believe is looking at the product/player versus the box scores? Your media members or your finalist?

IF it's not finalist only what would you recommend to make this a far more straight forward and transparent option? Regional voters can't vote for players in their region?

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Not voting for a player in their region would be ....interesting...
But how many even watch football played outside their region...
Most listen to the talking heads.... ... game announcers...
But...the 4 final Cc games did get some viewership...for voters who are football fans..