The Heisman's mission statement is to reward the "Most outstanding college football player..."
This year I've watched a great deal of college football -- more than almost any other year. Without a doubt in my mind, RGIII is the "most outstanding" player in the nation. I always look at the "without him" test -- i.e., how is his team without him.
Alabama is just as good without Richardson -- they have a pretty dull offense anyway and behind that OLine, most decent backs are going to get 1000 yards. He's a great RB, no doubt, but he's not the reason Alabama is playing for the NC.
LSU isn't going to lose any games without the Honey Badger. In fact, the games he sat out were still victories for LSU. He's a game changer for sure. But, as a Michigan Man, I can tell you 100% unequivocally that without Charles Woodson in 1997, Michigan doesn't go undefeated and does not win the NC -- he near singlehandedly won several games with INT's and kick returns for TD's. Mathieu has done similar things, but not to the extent that Woodson did.
I would say that Stanford isn't anywhere near as successful as they were this season without Luck. But, in the biggest of game vs. USC and Oregon, to me, he didn't get it down. By contrast, Baylor is nothing without RGIII and in the biggest games, he came up HUGE.
Easy choice, but I am sure the voters will mess it up.