Let's all be honest with ourselves: 90% of the Heismans awarded have been, well, kind of like national championships VOTED on but not played for: media created jokes to validate pre-existing opinions.
Assume if you will that we beat UGA last January without Tua at QB. Guess what? Aside from the reality that Tua probably transfers, he's not even a Heisman contender entering this season. And that's the thing. Most of these awards begin with the hype of "X is the front-runner for the Heisman" and the news is reported through that prism. If Tua was not on the field last January and kicking off this year with all the hype, Kyler Murray could already have gone over his speech a dozen times.
There have been VERY FEW Heisman winners that didn't begin with "he's the likely winner." I will give credit in that those are slanted more towards the last 20 years. The first I can recall winning without an orchestrated media campaign was Barry Sanders in 1988. But here is how the DAC tends to award Heismans:
1) Can we give it to anyone from Notre Dame?
And if you don't believe me just consider the fact that Manti Teo deserved absolutely ZERO consideration for the award but, hey, Notre Dame something something. This is why Tim Brown, who was a great player, got an award he had no business getting. Don MacPherson of Syracuse - in 1987 - did the exact same thing Vinny Testaverde did in 1986. He led the nation in passing and his team was undefeated. But the poor fella did not play for Notre Dame so, well, not that good.
And while Rocket Ismail may have been the runner-up in 1990 (and during the 91 Orange Bowl the insinuation he deserved it), Colorado's Mike Prichard had better stats but no hype. Guess who finished higher?
2) Can we give it to a USC tailback?
3) Does the Big Ten have a viable candidate?
4) Is there a senior who has had a great career? (aka the Doug Flutie Award)
This one has kind of gone by the wayside as guys bolt to the NFL early and the Heisman, never given to anyone below a junior until Tim Tebow in 2007, was opened up to all players and not just upperclassmen.
5) Can we create a new narrative?
This is how Steve McNair got consideration he absolutely did not deserve (more on this in a moment).
6) Who is the best player on the nation's best team?
This is the other fallback criteria, and it's how Gino Torretta won a trophy he should never have even been invited to NYC to get.
=================================
Now, I don't disagree with the main thrust of the OP. It SHOULD matter who you play, which is why the fact Steve McNair got any consideration at all is an utter farce. Make no mistake: McNair was a good quarterback who went on to a rather successful NFL career, but even considering a guy who played at a Division I-AA school was a disgusting joke since MOST of the players who went there weren't good enough to compete at the (now) FBS level in the first place. (Yes, Walter Payton and Jerry Rice and McNair are rare exceptions, which is precisely the point). The 655 voters who put his name on the ballot should have been stripped of voting privileges as the division between two Penn State stars on an unbeaten team (Kerry Collins and Ki-Jana Carter) plus McNair handed the award to another undeserving winner, the late Rashaan Salaam. (And I had nothing against Salaam, but he basically benefited from a vote split).
It's also why Gordie Lockbaum of Holy Cross (5th in 1986 and 3rd in 1987) merited no consideration whatsoever. Sure they went undefeated - who wouldn't have against their schedule? Lockbaum got a lot of ink as a two-way player.
But there's another elephant in the room (if you'll pardon the metaphor): Murray is a senior and Tua isn't. Game over. Indeed, more than once the voting has done this, made a guy wait because "he'll have another chance next year." And it is a simple fact that the voters are turned on by offensive numbers REGARDLESS of the level of competition. We can complain about this, but it's true.
I guess the reason I reached the "who cares" point is because I've lived through too many of these things. In 1980, a HS recruit walked onto the field for Georgia and had one of the most dazzling seasons I've ever seen anyone have. In the context of his time, Herschel Walker should have won the Heisman in a rout. He finished third in the nation in rushing (behind George Rogers of South Carolina and Stump Mitchell of the Citadel - oh and Mitchell got ZERO consideration for the Heisman btw), and his team was the SEC champions and undefeated (and eventual national champions). His team also beat Rogers's head to head, he outpeformed Rogers in the game, and Rogers made a key fumble that cost his team the ballgame, 13-10.
Walker not only didn't win - he finished THIRD behind a defensive guy, Hugh Green of Pitt.
In 1983, a running back at Nebraska ran up some colossal numbers against some terrible defenses while an SEC running back had a very good year with one less game and one of the toughest schedules ever created. In fact, the yards per carry was only in favor of the Nebraska guy by 7.8 to 7.7. Yet Mike Rozier had his Heisman speech ready on Halloween and Bo Jackson did not even finish in the Top Ten. The funny thing is this: switch teams with the guys and Auburn drops to a 3-loss team and Nebraska is still undefeated. But Bo didn't have the yardage and Bo wasn't a senior so Bo knows rejection. (Had Bo played for Notre Dame, he would not have won in 1983, but he would have finished 2nd with the same stats).
In 1984, we were treated to the media at is most shallow. Doug Flutie won the Heisman Trophy in the "senior who had a great career" category. Look at these numbers and tell me:
Candidate A: 246 for 423 and 3634 yards, 30 TD/13 INT
Candidate B: 283 for 458 (37 more completions in 35 more passes) and 3875 yards, 33 TD/11 INT
Now.......is there any way under the sun that Candidate B isn't eminently superior to Candidate A?
What if I told you Candidate B's team was the ONLY undefeated team and wound up winning the national title while Candidate A's team lost two games? Candidate B led the nation in completions, attempts, yards, and TDs.
But because:
a) Candidate A was a short, good-looking guy who
b) had a 'Heisman moment'
c) played in the East
he won the Heisman Trophy. It was a "feel good" story.
Meanwhile, the guy with better stats who got no hype and played for a team nobody saw play in the mountains of Utah at a religious school......ho hum.
(And if anyone is going to go for the "but the schedule" argument, Doug Flutie played ONE team that ended the year in the Top 20, 8-5 Miami who was only ranked because they started at #1).
The FACT is that neither guy faced a formidable schedule but one had clearly superior numbers and played on a national champion - but didn't get the hype. Let's face it: Boston is a major media center very close to the ESPN studios and Provo isn't.
I have to go to work, but I could multiply these types of inconsistent voting jokes.
