Our Methodology

Really, it's quite simple. There are 924 official voters for the Trophy. 870 of them are sportswriters, and 54 of them are former winners (and one fan vote). Many of those voters will publicly declare their votes - in print, on TV, on the radio, on the net - and if we count enough of them, we'll know who the winner will be.

It takes a little math (which we're happy to do) but mostly, it takes your help - if you hear an official voter go public, post a comment or send us an email.

How it works:

  • We count actual votes. We count only the picks from people who claim to be actual voters. (The organization doesn't release a list of voters, so we can't verify.)
  • We make two assumptions. 1) That the voter turnout in each region will be equal, and 2) that the undisclosed votes in each region will mirror the publicly disclosed votes,
  • Based on those assumptions, we total up the votes in each region and then extrapolate the totals.
  • We continually update as more information comes in.

Dude, it looks screwed up. Sometimes, especially early on, the total actual votes don't seem to correlate to the projected totals. Not to worry - that's usually because there's a huge disparity between the regions in the number of ballots we've found. Also, if we don't know what region a voter belongs in (often, network TV guys) we assign a fraction of that vote to each region.

When's the projection good enough? Not sure, but we got it right in 2002 with just under 14% of the voters counted. We also got it right in 2003 with just under 19% of the voters counted. In 2004, we had 25% of the voters counted, and got it right for the third year in a row. (FYI - voter turnout has been pretty consistently right around 85%.)

And yes, we got it right in 2005 yet again.


Early in the data collection process, we expect the numbers to be off somewhat - since people who are promoting underdogs often will talk about their pick early. The more data that arrives, the better the projection gets - so if we're missing a voter, post a comment or send us an email

Kari Chisholm | November 15, 2005 | Comment on This Post (18 so far)
Permalink: Our Methodology

Comments

SPONSORED LINK

You may have this one already, but Dan Hicken, the lead sports guy for First Coast News in Jacksonville, went on the air a week or so ago and showed his stiff arm trophy voting ballot. He then made the case for Tebow and why he should win it. While he didn't explicitly say he was voting for Tebow, he very much implied. Hicken is also a graduate of the University of Florida, not that is should matter (but it will).

Posted by: Jason | Dec 1, 2007 9:26:20 PM

You may have this one already, but Dan Hicken, the lead sports guy for First Coast News in Jacksonville, went on the air a week or so ago and showed his stiff arm trophy voting ballot. He then made the case for Tebow and why he should win it. While he didn't explicitly say he was voting for Tebow, he very much implied. Hicken is also a graduate of the University of Florida, not that is should matter (but it will).

Posted by: Jason | Dec 1, 2007 9:27:44 PM

You may have this one, but Dan Hicken, the lead sports guy for First Coast News in Jacksonville, went on the air a week or so ago and showed his stiff arm trophy voting ballot. He then made the case for Tebow and why he should win it. While he didn't explicitly say he was voting for Tebow, he very much implied. Hicken is also a graduate of the University of Florida, not that is should matter (but it will).

Posted by: Jason | Dec 1, 2007 9:27:57 PM

David Whitley, Orlando Sentinel voter, Tebow #1

Posted by: Dawn | Dec 6, 2007 5:25:39 AM

Pat Duley of the gainesville Sun has a vote and voted #1 Tebow, #2 Mcfadden

Posted by: Tupac | Dec 8, 2007 7:05:00 AM

Thx! :)

Posted by: honda-radio | Feb 18, 2008 10:32:26 AM

Tim Brown said right on ESPN after he announced the five invited that he voted for Gerhart of Stanford as his winner.

Posted by: Tim | Dec 7, 2009 4:56:21 PM

suh has a huge lead in first place votes (22 over ingram). does a first place vote count the same as a third place vote?

Posted by: trevor | Dec 8, 2009 2:59:04 PM

http://blogs.indystar.com/hoosiersinsider/archives/2009/12/thank_you_huske.html

Posted by: Grainger | Dec 8, 2009 3:19:25 PM

I hope all the idiots who voted weeks early and put Tebow and McCoy ahead of Ingram, Gerhart, and Suh are ashamed. They shouldnt even accept the ballots til Dec. 6

Posted by: chris | Dec 9, 2009 2:20:22 AM

If Gerhart doesn't win, then this award IS NOT for the best player in college football! If Gerhart has better numbers and stats in one less game played(because of the SEC Championship Game) than Ingram, then how can anyone say that Gerhart shouldn't win? Tebow blew it...loss to Alabama. McCoy blew it....not a Heisman candidate game against Nebraska. Ingram...doesn't compare to Gerhart, and Suh....the best defensive player in the nation but does not deserve the Heisman. Gerhart plays on a Stanford team that if he isn't the running back then Standford would be 0-12! Gerhart single handedly turned Standford around! Great job Toby!! GO NORCO!! GO STANFORD!!

Posted by: David | Dec 9, 2009 3:43:10 PM

Gene Wojciechowski from ESPN voted (from his podcast)

1)Gerhart
2)Keenum
3)Suh

Posted by: clark Ruby | Dec 9, 2009 5:19:39 PM

http://jacksonville.com/sports/columnists/gene_frenette/2009-12-08/story/top_pick_for_heisman_trophy_runs_around_suh

Posted by: asdf | Dec 9, 2009 6:53:39 PM

The award should go to Mark Ingram. He did what he did against SEC defenses. And he is one of the leaders of the #1 team in the Nation in all polls. He helped lead his team to the BCS National Championship Game. The award should go to the "best player", not the best stats. This is what Ingram did against the Nation's top defenses:

Virginia Tech, defense ranked 14th: 150 rushing yards 1 TD rushing, 1 TD rec.
Ole Miss, defense ranked 24th: 172 rushing yards 1 TD rushing
South Carolina, defense ranked 15th: 246 rushing yards 1 TD rushing
Tennessee, defense ranked 16th: 99 rushing yards
LSU, defense ranked 28th: 144 rushing yards
Florida, defense ranked 4th (1st before SEC Champioship): 113 yards rushing 3 TD's

Toby Gerhart ONLY faced 2 defenses ranked in the Top 30 nationally (Arizona St. 12 & Arizona 21). Gerhart carried the ball 311 times versus only 249 for Ingram. Alabama's 2nd leading rusher, Trent Richardson, had 126 carries for 642 yards! Stanford's 2nd leading rusher had 61 carries for 354. Alabama finished 13-0 in the strongest/toughest conference in the nation. Stanford only went 8-4 in one of the weakest conferences in the Nation!

Ingram should win it hands down! If he doesn't, it will be the biggest ripoff since Charles Woodson stole the award from Peyton Manning. And then our sorry Congress will step in & try to regulate the Heisman Trophy too!

Posted by: Bill McNutt | Dec 9, 2009 7:45:48 PM

I think your results page would be enhanced by including a margin of error. Taking a very simple approach by comparing projected vs. actual from the top of your home page, the margin of error for the winner has been anywhere from -3.8% to +1.6% (I'm ignoring 2002 based on that being your first year and your methods have improved.) Anyway, basing this on #s as of 11pm 12/9, even if you take Ingram -0.7 & Gerhart +0.7 then they switch places. Not the most scientific write-up but I think you get the point I'm trying to make.
Regards (and ROLL TIDE)
**Jim

Posted by: Jim | Dec 9, 2009 8:17:19 PM

The Heisman usually has little to do with the who is the best player in college football, it has to do with who appears to be. You can argue Gerhart deserves it more then Ingram because Ingram plays for a better team, which means he has better athletes around him to help him be better. You can argue that SUH is the best because without him the defense does not perform at the level it did and without that level of play from the defense Nebraska doesn't win half the games they did, because they have no offense. Tebow and McCoy played average at best for two teams that have more talent on the bench then either Stanford or Nebraska has on the field.

Posted by: Stanley Steele | Dec 10, 2009 2:53:26 AM

I hope Gerhart or Suh win and I am a BAMA fan. I've enjoyed quoting Coach Bryant all these many years by saying that at Alabama we don't win H------s, we win championships. That being said, I think Ingram is a GREAT player and in this season of no one jumping out at us, he's a good choice. The writers in Florida that did NOT even put Ingram on their ballots should have their voting privileges pulled. People are entitled to their opinions, but not their own set of facts. Being an old D-II defensive lineman makes me want Suh to win it also.

Posted by: Chip | Dec 11, 2009 8:04:46 AM

It would be nice to see Ingram win. But the fact that Bama has so many championships and no Heisman winner says alot about the team concept. My problem is with the voters in the south that totally left Ingram off their ballots. I guess thay know their coaches can't beat Saban recruiting. Now it's gotten to the point the teams they write for can't beat his teams. So the last thing they want is for him to be able to use the Heisman as a recruiting tool. It's a shame these writers don't have the honor that should come with the opportunity to vote for such a prestigious award.. But really, what has the Heisman done for anyone anyway other that getting the families of the 2 OJ victims some money when his was melted down. I'm sorry, I forgot to say "alleged".

Posted by: Tony Miller | Dec 11, 2009 4:54:43 PM


The H------ Memorial Trophy is a registered trademark of the H------ Memorial Trophy Trust. This site is not affiliated with the Trust, not even a little. We're not even using the H------ word, since they don't want us to. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Copyright to and responsibility for all posts and comments are owned by their respective authors.

Obviously, the posts and comments here are the views of their authors, and not of anyone else.

While we're strong believers in free speech, we reserve the right to delete comment spam or other offensive material. Our contributors, however, reserve the right to embarass themselves in public.