As someone who voted for the Heisman for years, I can assure you that most people who vote for the Heisman are idiots who see very little college football outside of whichever team they cover. There are exceptions, but not many.
Frist up, Toby: There's also no real "west coast block" of votes, and god knows nobody who went to Stanford is covering college football games. So, toss out the entierly deserving Gerhart, who only about 40% have even seen play.
You can toss out Suh, too, though he or Gerhart would be my pick. He plays defense, so he's done before he starts. (I voted for Hugh Green, by the way). Impossible to remember, foreign-sounding, first name doesn't help either.
Tebow? Well, most voters will have heard of him, but two-time winners are not allowed (the "Archie Griffin Sucked in the Pros" rule), and lots of people don't like him (not sure why) or the Gators (no mystery there). Not happening. So, the three guys I would have voted 1-2-3, will finish 3-4-5.
Who wins? Well, Ingram is a good back who gets to run behind a line that I would gain 1,200 yards with. He's on the #1 team, which is definately a plus for the small-minded voters, which, again, is most of them. Still, 20% of the voters don't know who he is, and 15% more know Bama has a really good back, but can't remember his name. Lack of jaw-dropping overall numbers or true signature performance will keep him off the podium.
Who's left standing? Colt McCoy, who had a really good half agaiinst A&M, and played well last year. Voters will know them name, or confuse him with Colt Brennen, but he was good too. He also plays for Texas, so he will get approximately 107% of all the votes cast by those in Texas. This will really be a career-achievement award, which is fairly rare for Heisman voters.