Is No Heisman Campaign the New Heisman Campaign?

It used to be that having a Heisman trophy candidate could cost the school some money. Not every game is nationally televised so it took some effort (and money) to make sure voters knew how awesome a school's player was.

Of course if he won than it was worthwhile, but if you lost--well, it kind of sucked. Maybe that is why some of the top candidates for the 2013 honor are not running campaigns.

It would not be shocking if cost was the reason why some schools have decided not to run campaigns for their players. It has been no secret that not all programs are flush with cash. For some running a Heisman campaign would be a bad fiscal decision.

Then again, of the schools that we know for certain are not running campaigns for their Heisman candidate, not a one has financial issues. Georgia recently announced that they would not be actively promoting Aaron Murray. Louisville is not running one for Teddy Bridgewater. South Carolina is not planning on doing much for Jadaveon Clowney either.

",,,Our stance is similar to that of Georgia’s for Aaron Murray. With our first two games on national TV and the buzz already surrounding Jadeveon, we’ll let it play out some..."

So far there has not been any word on what Alabama may or may not do for A.J. McCarron, what Ohio State's plans are for Braxton Miller, or Texas A&M for the reigning Heisman trophy winner in Johnny Manziel.

If it isn't money that is keeping teams from promoting their players than what is it? It's because they don't need to.

Johnny Manziel proved last season that there is no need for any kind of elaborate Heisman campaign. Manziel didn't win because the school sent out flyers or anything. No, he won it because he played lights out football and made it nearly impossible for voters to pick anyone else.

He let his actions on the field do the talking--and it worked.

Could a new precedent be set? Will the award be won solely off of talent, ability, and results? We can only hope so.