SPORTS E2 USA TODAY z TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2019 z 3C
The first weekend of November hap-
pened to be an off date for most Heis-
man Trophy contenders and their re-
spective teams. Even so, there was some
minor shuffling in the USA TODAY Net-
work weekly Heisman survey.
LSU quarterback Joe Burrow con-
tinues to lead the field heading into his
second-ranked Tigers’ showdown with
No. 1 Alabama. Burrow was mentioned
by all 21 official Heisman electors who
work for USA TODAY Network proper-
ties, with 15 first-place selections and
six putting him second. If he leads LSU
to a win in Tuscaloosa, he’ll be difficult
to overtake in the season’s final month.
Oklahoma quarterback Jalen Hurts re-
mains in second overall with five first-
place mentions.
There’s a new candidate in third
place as voters supporting one of Ohio
State’s key contributors seem to have
coalesced around defensive end Chase
Young. The nation’s sacks leader was
named on 12 ballots including a couple
of second-place nods as he overtook
Alabama quarterback Tua Tagovailoa
by a point. Young’s gain appears to have
come at the expense of his teammates
on the offensive side who got votes a
week ago. Running back J.K. Dobbinspicked up just a single second-place
mention while quarterback Justin
Fields got no points this week.Oregon quarterback Justin Herbert
and Wake Forest quarterback Jamie
Newman received a point apiece.USA TODAY SPORTS HEISMAN TROPHY SURVEY
LSU’s Burrow picks up more support
Eddie Timanus
USA TODAY
USA TODAY Sports Network Heisman surveyPlayer, school, position, year 1st 2nd 3rd Total
Joe Burrow, LSU, QB, Sr. 15 6 0 57
Jalen Hurts, Oklahoma, QB, Sr. 5 10 3 38
Chase Young, Ohio State, DE, Jr. 0 2 10 14
Tua Tagovailoa, Alabama, QB, Jr. 1 2 6 13
J.K. Dobbins, Ohio State, RB, Jr. 0 1 0 2
Justin Herbert, Oregon, QB, Sr. 0 0 1 1
Jamie Newman, QB, Wake Forest, Jr. 0 0 1 1
A first-place vote is worth 3 points, second 2, third 1.The hype over the latest Game of the
Century This Season (This Week) began
simmering weeks ago, for good reason.
But LSU-Alabama promises to reverber-
ate far beyond Saturday, too, because
the winner will likely be everybody’s No.
1 – and because we’re all wondering:
What will the loser be?
Which brings us to the upcoming un-
veiling of the initial College Football
Playoff Top 25 ranking. We already
know what others think about LSU and
Alabama. Tide versus Tigers is being
billed as the first No. 1 vs. No. 1 matchup,
with Alabama sitting atop the Amway
Coaches Poll and LSU in the top spot in
the Associated Press poll. Come Tues-
day night, we’ll learn how the selection
committee sees the showdown.
Just guessing here, but it’ll more like-
ly be No. 1 vs. No. 3 according to the CFP
(or even No. 2 and No. 3, depending on
how the committee sees Ohio State’s
impressive performances against lesser
competition). But seemingly far more
important is what the selection commit-
tee does next week, and in the weeks af-
ter that. Especially if ’Bama and LSU
play a close game, get ready for this su-
per-heated debate:
If both teams win out from there, are
both headed for the Playoff?
Projecting to the end of the season is
always dicey in college football, because
college football. But the way this goes is
to assume Clemson and either Ohio
State or Penn State are in the bracket,
along with the SEC champion (presum-
ably, the Alabama-LSU winner). And
then the idea is that either Alabama or
LSU, at 11-1 without winning the SEC
West, would get the last slot in the four-
team bracket, rather than either the
Pac-12 or Big 12 champion.
While we’re at it, though, the Big Ten
could have the same opportunity. On
Saturday, Penn State plays unbeaten
Minnesota. If the Nittany Lions knock
off the surprising Gophers, why
shouldn’t the loser of a close game Nov.
23 between Ohio State and Penn State
get the same consideration?
With those hypotheticals, the con-
versation over the next few weeks could
be simultaneously fun and infuriating.
But if the Pac-12 or the Big 12 produces a
one-loss champion (or in the Big 12’s
case, an unbeaten Baylor), neither the
SEC nor the Big Ten should count onputting a second team into the field.
Yeah, we know, there’s precedent.
zIn 2017, Alabama got in at 11-1, with-
out winning the SEC West – and ahead
of Big Ten champion Ohio State. Then
the Crimson Tide made the selection
committee look very good by winning
the national championship.
zIn 2016, Ohio State was selected at
11-1, without winning the Big Ten East –
and ahead of Big Ten champion Penn
State, which had beaten Ohio State.
Then the Buckeyes were blown out by
Clemson in a semifinal.
But in both years, the conferencechamp that was left out had two losses.
In 2017, Ohio State’s two-loss resume in-
cluded a confoundingly bad loss to
Iowa. In 2016, the comparison for 11-
Penn State was actually not with Ohio
State, which was the No. 3 seed, but in-
stead with Pac-12 champion Washing-
ton (12-1), which got the No. 4 seed.
zLikewise, we’ve seen last year one-
loss Big 12 champion Oklahoma get the
nod over two-loss Georgia, which re-
ceived serious consideration from the
selection committee despite losing in
the SEC championship game.
But what happens if the selection
committee has to choose between an 11-
LSU with a very good resume (wins at
Texas and against Florida and Auburn,
though it’s hard to project their value at
season’s end) vs. 12-1 conference cham-
pion Oregon, Utah or Oklahoma?
What if it’s instead 11-1 Alabama with
a less impressive body of work? And
wouldn’t those conference champions
have fairly decent resumes, too, includ-
ing one more victory?
In the official selection criteria, “con-
ference championships won” is one fac-
tor the committee is charged with con-
sidering to distinguish “among other-
wise comparable teams.” But the goal is
the four “best teams.” It’s all so murkily
subjective, which is why there’s no way
to know what the selection committee
might do.
So we’ll all argue long and loud – at
least until we’re reminded, one more
time, that college football has this funny
knack for befuddling projections and
settling debates.
For examples, let’s reach all the way
back to October, when South Carolina
upset Georgia and Kansas State popped
Oklahoma. Why should November be
different?
As we await the selection commit-
tee’s first set of rankings, that’s the best
news. Counting the conference champi-
onship games, we’ve still got five more
weeks of arguing — we mean, football.Playoff committee to make first call
Alabama tight end Miller Forristall tries to pull in a reception as Tennessee
linebacker Quavaris Crouch defends.BUTCH DILL/USA TODAY SPORTSGeorge Schroeder
Columnist
USA TODAYCOLLEGE FOOTBALL
WASHINGTON – After their majestic
run through October, when the Wash-
ington Nationals won the World Series
by doing just about everything right,
they couldn’t get through the first four
days of November without making a
huge error.
By apparently not cautioning their
players, manager and general manager
to avoid politics at their White House
celebration Monday afternoon, a photo
of catcher Kurt Suzuki wearing a bright
red “Make America Great Again” hat,
which can only be described as an ag-
gressively partisan gesture, while re-
ceiving a behind-the-back bearhug
from a delighted President Donald
Trump, will become the day’s enduring
image.
The Nationals and MAGA are now
linked for as long as people remember
this White House visit, which, this
being Washington, could be a very long
time.
Suzuki’s political display was still
trending across the country on Twitter
hours after it happened. What’s more, in
the video capturing the moment, in
which Trump calls Suzuki to the podi-
um, it’s not only the president who ap-
pears thrilled.
Manager Dave Martinez, born in
Brooklyn to Puerto Rican parents, also
laughed and clapped joyfully, while
general manager Mike Rizzo was caught
by a microphone trying to pre-empt
the surprise by telling Trump that
Suzuki had a “MAGA hat,” meaning
Suzuki’s stunt had definitely been in the
works.
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mis-
take about it, these are your 2019 Wash-
ington Nationals. Some of them, any-
way.
Suzuki, Martinez and Rizzo have
every right to express their partisan glee
about being beside Trump. So does
Nat-for-life Ryan Zimmerman, who
showered praise on Trump while giving
him a jersey, then a hearty pat on the
shoulder.
But to do so on such a visible and
public stage during what has tradition-
ally been a nonpartisan celebration is
both noteworthy and risky.
It is clear that at least some of the
Nats came to the White House not just
to celebrate their World Series victory.
They decided to use the team ceremony
as a way to offer their support to an ex-
tremely controversial and unpopular
president.
When asked about his MAGA move,
Suzuki texted USA TODAY Sports: “Justtrying to have some fun. Everybody
makes everything political. It was
about our team winning the World
Series.”
Of course, Suzuki was the one who
made this political.
I’ve written about White House visits
by sports teams since the 1980s, and I
can’t remember any quite like this. Most
of them, you can barely remember who
was president. It was just a team visit-
ing the White House.
When the Nationals announced last
week that they were going to the White
House so quickly after the World Series,
the conventional wisdom was that this
would be the same. They would bend
over backwards to make this as nonpar-
tisan as possible.
That would be the right thing to do, of
course. It also would be the smart busi-
ness play.
The Nationals rely on people who live
in Washington, Northern Virginia and
Maryland to watch their broadcasts and
buy their tickets. It’s an understatement
to say this is not Trump country. The re-
lentless booing of Trump in Game 5 of
the World Series was no accident. That
was a fitting symbol of the region’s dis-
dain for this president.
When pitcher Sean Doolittle an-
nounced in a thoughtful interview with
The Washington Post that he wouldn’t
be visiting the White House because ofTrump’s “divisive rhetoric and the en-
abling of conspiracy theories and wid-
ening the divide in this country,” that
made sense to many in the area. So too
did the decision by the Nationals’ own-
ers, the Lerner family, to not see or talk
to Trump during his Game 5 visit to Na-
tionals Park.
So it came as quite a surprise in this
town that a few Nationals just couldn’t
help showing their love and affection for
Trump. How could they be so tone deaf,
playing just three miles from the White
House?
There will be those who ask what
Martinez and Rizzo should have done
when Suzuki made his blatant political
move.
How about not clapping? How about
not smiling or laughing?
I emailed two Nationals spokes-
people to ask if the organization con-
doned a player putting on a MAGA hat
while representing the team at the
White House. Neither replied.
Meanwhile, in addition to Doolittle,
the following Nationals did not go to the
White House Monday: Anthony Ren-
don, Victor Robles, Michael A. Taylor,
Joe Ross, Javy Guerra, Wander Suero
and Wilmer Difo.
Whatever their reasons, they ended
up not being part of the Nationals’
Trump lovefest. For them, that was a
very good look.Christine Brennan
Columnist
USA TODAYNationals swing and miss with White House play