Former Harvard substitute defensive back Robert F. Kennedy offered an astute assessment of the Heisman Trophy selection process while presenting the 1962 award to Oregon State’s Terry Baker.

“Why,” Kennedy asked, “do the Heisman winners always have to be big guys and from the backfield? Why did 26 of the 28 winners have to be backs? It’s about time they recognized good, short substitutes!”

Even as far back as 1962,a good, short substitute could see the injustice. The 923 voters for the Heisman Trophy are supposed to choose “The Outstanding College Football Player in America.” What they do, of course, is pick the outstanding quarterback or running back, with a break every 10 years to consider a receiver or a defensive player.

The reason backs win is obvious: stats. Assuming, then, that the task is simply to pick the outstanding passer or runner, there’s no reason why some common sense standards can’t be applied.

Is the candidate the best player in the nation at his position? Is the candidate the primary reason for his team’s success? Were his numbers compiled against worthy opposition? Were at least some of them piled on to beaten opponents to impress analysts?

If we can’t pick the best player, we can at least try and find the candidate who best meets these standards.

Alex Smith comes close. Much has been made of the failure of the sports press to recognize the achievements of the Utah quarterback, who certainly fits some of the common-sense qualifications for a Heisman candidate: He is clearly the major force behind his team’s success, and his numbers don’t appear to be padded. His yard-per-throw average of 9.4 and TD-Interception ratio of 7-to-1 are the best of any passer at a major school.

On the other hand, the Utes’ opponents were just 52-58 all year, and Smith only faced four winning teams, none of them better than Texas A&M and New Mexico, who both posted 7-3 records aside from their losses to Utah. This isn’t Smith’s fault, but he clearly faced the weakest schedule of any Heisman candidate.

California’s Aaron Rogers has more of a legitimate Heisman case, but the press hasn’t picked up on it because his team lost a game. This isn’t fair – it was a six point loss to no. 1 USC on the Trojans’ home field. Overall, Cal’s opponents (59-51) were better than Utah’s. Smith’s stats were better than Rogers’s, but Rogers had to work harder for them.

Texas running back Cedric Benson faced much stronger opposition than did Smith or Rogers – his team’s opponents were 66-45 otherwise – and his team also lost just one game, to no. 2-ranked Oklahoma. Benson was superb, but it’s difficult to determine how significant his numbers actually were. He gained 181 yards in a 65-0 breeze over North Texas, was held to only 95 yards while his team was shut out against Oklahoma, and gained 450 yards in three other games against teams the Longhorns beat by a combined total of 75 points.

Two more worthy candidates can be found in Oklahoma. Sooners quarterback Jason White won the Heisman last year, and freshman Adrian Peterson is being touted this year. Their schedule (opponents were 70-51 otherwise) was slightly tougher than the Longhorns’. They faced six elite teams, including an otherwise unbeaten Texas, and the combined won-lost records of those opponents was 46-15. White’s numbers in those games were substantial: He passed for 1,269 yards and 17 touchdowns, averaging 7.4 yards a throw.

Nonetheless, in the Sooners’ two toughest games, a 12-0 victory over Texas and a 38-35 thriller against Oklahoma State, White was not at his best, and Peterson picked up the slack. So who was more valuable? It’s impossible to say, but as good as Peterson was this past season, it’s doubtful he would be a Heisman candidate if he hadn’t averaged 182 yards and scored seven touchdowns against Oregon, Houston, and Baylor – teams that won just 11 of 30 games.

Matt Leinart’s and Reggie Bush’s situation at USC is roughly analogous to White and Peterson at Oklahoma. Bush is so sensational a runner (6.1 yards per carry) and receiver (41 catches, 7 TDs) that it’s impossible to ignore him. But we wouldn’t really consider him a Heisman Trophy candidate if he weren’t playing for the no. 1 team in the country, and USC is the no. 1 team in the country primarily because of Leinart.

But the real argument for Leinart has nothing to do with his team’s ranking. At first glance, some of his numbers don’t look as good as Smith’s or Rogers’s. His yards per pass average of 7.9 is the lowest of the three. But no player considered for the Heisman this year came up bigger in crucial games than did Matt Leinart.

The Trojans played six teams with winning records, a combined 46-15 otherwise. Three of those teams – Cal, Virginia Tech, and Arizona State – were 28-3 when not losing to Southern Cal. Two others – Notre Dame and UCLA, both 6-4 – are USC’s bitterest rivals.

Against the Trojans’ six best opponents, Leinart was 112 of 176 for 1,509 yards, with 16 touchdowns against just three interceptions. His yards per pass average in those games was 8.6, considerably higher than his overall average. There are murmurs that he shouldn’t get the trophy because he threw for “only” 242 yards against UCLA and was held without a TD pass for the first time in two seasons. This is nonsense: Leinart stepped up in the big games.

Yes, USC has a killer program, and they’d probably win at least nine games with their third-string QB, but you shouldn’t punish a guy because he plays on a great team, particularly when his performance surpasses that of his teammates. Matt Leinart is the outstanding college football player for the 2004 season.