"The packaging is nice, we're building it to sell. Call all your people in Hollywood and Nashville. It's one in a million, in fact, we broke the die. It's all of the hype that your money can buy." - Five Iron Frenzy

Football season is just a month away. That means one thing. Heisman Trophy hype and early "players to watch" lists are just around the corner. Too bad, too. 'Cause I don't give a darn about the Heisman.

My dislike for the "Hypesman" has nothing to do with the Peyton Manning Rip-Off, by the way. I'm just not big on awards that have absolutely no criteria. "The best player in college football." What's does that mean? That can be interpreted about 50,000 different ways. But it seems there are some unstated truths in this process.

For example, if you're not from a big-time school, forget it, you're not going to be considered "the best player." Unless you happen to play for Princeton and are matched up against one of Tennessee's four Heisman runner-ups (as Dick Kazmaier was when he bested Hank Lauricella in 1951, the last time an Ivy League player won the award).

If you're not on a winning team ... a VERY winning team ... you don't have a chance, either. Unless you happen to play for a 2-8 Notre Dame team and are matched up against one of Tennessee's four Heisman runner-ups (as Paul Hornung was when he bested John Majors in 1956).

And if you play defense, you've only got a 1 in 71 chance. Unless, you happen to play cornerback for Michigan and are matched up against one of Tennessee's four Heisman runner-ups (as Charles Woodson was when he bested Manning in 1997).

Come to think of it, perhaps The Downtown Athletic Club should just create "The Tennessee Clause" in their voting procedures. It could be an "all bets are off" type of free pass for any player with a shot of taking the award away from an odds-on-favorite who also happens to be a Vol.

But why can't the best player in college football play on a crummy team? Or in a small conference? Or play on defense? Or the offensive line? Who says? It's all up to the individual voter's definition of "best player."

And a voter's criteria is his own criteria. Maybe a sportswriter in Chicago had a bad vacation in California one year. So no Heisman winners from the Golden State for him. Sadly, that's not as far-fetched as it sounds.

Famously, one sportswriter in '97 decided between Woodson and Manning by asking himself the following: Would Manning be a better cornerback than Woodson would be a quarterback? His answer was no, so he gave his vote to Woodson. Oh, that makes sense.

As a matter of fact, if I had a vote, I'd take it a step further. I would try to level the playing field for everyone. So I would ask the following question: "If all of these guys were punters, who would be the best?" Yep, seems fair to me. Heck, that's just one more reason Majors should have beaten Hornung.

There's another reason I don't care much for the Heisman. It's called regional bias. Yeah, I know, the voters are broken evenly into six regions and each region includes 145 media members as voters (along with past Heisman winners). But that tree just doesn't bear fruit.

Players in bigger media markets get more national exposure than players from smaller markets. It's just a fact of television. The games with the best timeslots all come from the Midwest and Southwest. Voters see more of those players. They then vote for those players when it comes time to send in their ballots.

Want proof? There have been 71 Heisman winners from Jay Berwanger in 1935 to Reggie Bush in 2005. In that time, there have only been 12 winners from the South. That's it. And you thought the South played good football. Tsk, tsk.

Southern Cal (Los Angeles market) and Notre Dame (Chicago market) both have had seven winners. The entire SEC has had seven winners. In other words, since 1935, Notre Dame and USC each have produced just as many great players as all the teams in the SEC combined. That's ridiculous.

Want more proof that it ties to population and big markets? Georgia's Frank Sinkwich (1942), LSU's Billy Cannon (1959) and Florida's Steve Spurrier (1966) were the only three SEC players to win the Heisman prior to 1971.

But the old South became the new South in the 1960s. The growth of major cities like Atlanta and Charlotte and the Florida markets (and the media therein) has increased the number of Southerners who've won the trophy, but not so much that they get an even shot at ballot time.

Same goes for the West Coast. Only 11 players from the Far West have ever won the thing. And their big population boom came late, too (in the 1940s and '50s).

Why, unless you're a quarterback or running back, from a major school, with a shot at the national title, and playing in the Midwest/Southwest (37 winners), there's no reason to follow the Heisman hoopla at all this year.

So congratulations, in advance, Brady Quinn. Notre Dame is due (no winner since 1987) ... and you fit the profile.