Player 1 is a great quarterback on Team A. Player 2 is a great running back on Team A. Player 3 is a great quarterback on Team B. Team A is ranked number 1 and Team B is ranked number 2. Team B defeats Team A for the championship when Player 3 scores a touchdown in the last minute of the game. On top of that the game is played a few miles from the home of Team A.

Who should win the Heisman Trophy? One of the two great players on Team A or the great player who led Team B to the exciting upset victory? I never could understand how player 3 doesn't win the Heisman.

Note to the fans of Team A. I forgot to mention that player 3 carried his team through an undefeated season with great performances all year. Players 1 and 2 worked together (along with help from the referees against Notre Dame) to go undefeated. So Yes, it depends on more than one game, but....

vince young

The heisman isn't supposed to go the most valuable player(player 3) but the best player in the country. It could be either 1 2 or 3, depending on stats and whatnot.

The Heisman is judged on the performance throughout the entire season. In your scenario, Player 3 should be the MVP of that game, but not neccessarily the entire season.

The Heisman voting is done before the bowl games or BS, er, BCS games are played - it is based on the season, not the post season.

Team B Player 3.
I didnt here anything about the other players scoring and team b beat team a so i go with Player 3 Team B. But it could be anyone i mean we dont know there stats.

Reggie Bush beat out Vince Young because Bush had one of the best college seasons ever. Young had a great NC game but the award is for the whole season

why do a hypothetical question about the heisman why can't we talk about the real thing?

sounds like vince young. He deserved it, but everyone found out when it was too late. That's why the Hesiman is kind of flawed. It pretty much always goes to a qb or dominant rb regardless of whether the best player in the nation is a wr,de, cb, ol, fb, dt, mlb, etc. They should award it after all the bowl games, but then it would be possibily even more biased than it is now with the voters discounting anyone who has an "off game" during the bowl games.

You should take into consideration the Heisman curse, because most of the players who have won the Heisman in the past 20 years have lost their bowl games. Also, winning the Heisman does not guarantee success in the NFL. So it's not a question of who should win the Heisman, but who does not want to win the Heisman?