Reggie Bush getting stripped of Heisman trophy

[jimmy40]

The Heisman Trophy Trust is expected to strip former University of Southern California star running back Reggie Bush of college football’s top honor by the end of September, sources told Yahoo! Sports.

Bush would become the first player in the 75-year history of the award to have the trophy taken away. The NCAA found major violations in the Trojans’ football program in June and levied serious sanctions against the school.

Two sources close to the Heisman trust said the body’s investigation is coming to a close, and will ultimately concur with the NCAA’s determination that Bush was ineligible during his Heisman-winning season in 2005. Because of that independent conclusion, sources said the trust will relieve Bush of the award and leave the honor for that season vacant. The sources said Bush met with Heisman representatives last month at the New York law offices of Emmet, Marvin & Martin. The sources would not reveal details of that meeting.
ADVERTISEMENT

Bush, now a standout with the Super Bowl champion New Orleans Saints, could not immediately be reached for comment.
It appears as if the Heisman Trophy Trust is about to strip Reggie Bush of his 2005 trophy.
Julie Jacobson/AP

The Heisman trust has been conducting its own independent inquiry into Bush’s eligibility since the NCAA ruled in June that the USC star had committed multiple violations by accepting cash, gifts and other impermissible benefits while playing for the Trojans. Yahoo! Sports first detailed the extra benefits in September 2006. In its findings, the NCAA retroactively ruled Bush ineligible for part of the 2004 season and all of 2005. The NCAA also ordered the USC program to remove all references to Bush from its sporting venues and promotional materials and vacate his statistics from all games in which he was ineligible.

In July, incoming USC president C.L. Max Nikias announced that the university would be returning its copy of Bush’s Heisman to the trust, stating the Trojans would honor and respect athletes who “did not compromise their athletic program or the opportunities of future USC student-athletes.” New USC athletic director Pat Haden followed up in August, stating during an interview with the Dan Patrick radio show that Bush should also voluntarily return his Heisman.

While others pressed for a swift decision, the trust opted for a patient, meticulous effort. Sources said the trust did its own detailed investigation over the past three months, using a litany of resources and reviewing its information against the NCAA’s findings. The trust also offered Bush a chance to impact the decision.

The process apparently came with considerable debate – in part because of the trust’s quest for due process, but also because of the unique nature of the decision. Never in the history of the award has the trust been forced to retroactively rule on the eligibility of a past winner. That reality, along with the NCAA’s findings, created a tangled knot of deliberation regarding the trust’s place in the role of enforcement. Sources said the prominent issues discussed included accountability, on-field vs. off-field conduct, implications of retroactively stripping an award and possible impact on future athletes and the NCAA.

Two factors outweighed all others, sources said: The Heisman ballot necessitates candidates be in compliance with NCAA bylaws and concern over the Heisman’s reputation in the wake of the NCAA findings against Bush.

The status of USC’s 2004 Bowl Championship Series national title remains to be determined. BCS officials are awaiting the NCAA’s ruling on the Trojans’ appeal of the June finding.

[TheCowboy]

Give it to the man who deserves it most! Vince Young.

[Hoofbite]

Good move.

Now, if only the DROY voters would have had as much sense and stripped Cushing of his title.

[Sam I Am]

Good move.

Now, if only the DROY voters would have had as much sense and stripped Cushing of his title.

The media should lose all voting privileges for anything sports related. They have proven many times they are not capable of handling it.

[CATCH17]

Give it to the man who deserves it most! Vince Young.

The person who deserves it most is Reggie Bush.

It's a regular season trophy and Reggie had THE most electrifying season of all time.

[mldardy]

The person who deserves it most is Reggie Bush.

It's a regular season trophy and Reggie had THE most electrifying season of all time.
I agree, just leave it vacant if you are going to strip him.

[Chocolate Lab]

Good move.

Now, if only the DROY voters would have had as much sense and stripped Cushing of his title.

:hammer:

[joseephuss]

The person who deserves it most is Reggie Bush.

It's a regular season trophy and Reggie had THE most electrifying season of all time.

I don't think so. Bush had a great season, but Barry Sanders and Marcus Allen both had more electrifying seasons the years they won their Heismans.

[BanditHiro]

wow can the NCAA stoop any lower. i am not a Bush fan by any means but accepting money did not make him run faster jump higher or be more elusive.

and while on the subject why hasn't OJ returned his Heisman yet? i am pretty sure murder and armed robbery are worse than accepting money while in college.

[mldardy]

wow can the NCAA stoop any lower. i am not a Bush fan by any means but accepting money did not make him run faster jump higher or be more elusive.

and while on the subject why hasn't OJ returned his Heisman yet? i am pretty sure murder and armed robbery are worse than accepting money while in college.
The difference he didn't do it while playing at USC.

[joseephuss]

wow can the NCAA stoop any lower. i am not a Bush fan by any means but accepting money did not make him run faster jump higher or be more elusive.

and while on the subject why hasn't OJ returned his Heisman yet? i am pretty sure murder and armed robbery are worse than accepting money while in college.

If the NCAA knew at the time Bush was receiving money, they would have suspended him then. He then would not have been able to play and put up his Heisman numbers. That is why it is different than OJ's stuff.

[Sam I Am]

The person who deserves it most is Reggie Bush.

No he doesn't. Which is why they are going to strip it from him.

Reggie is a man of low character. He deserves the public humiliation that is coming. He has earned it.

[Sam I Am]

wow can the NCAA stoop any lower. i am not a Bush fan by any means but accepting money did not make him run faster jump higher or be more elusive.

Rules are rules. If you break the rules, you should be punished.

[CATCH17]

No he doesn't. Which is why they are going to strip it from him.

Reggie is a man of low character. He deserves the public humiliation that is coming. He has earned it.

I have no problem stripping him of it. Just don't give it to someone else.

He did nothing to enhance his performance so he didn't cheat. He just broke monetary rules.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The person who deserves it most is Reggie Bush.

It's a regular season trophy and Reggie had THE most electrifying season of all time.


Sell, lets see....

2005:

4029 yards total, 38 TDs total.

65.2% completion, 3036 yards passing, 26 TDs, 10 INTs.

993 yards rushing, 6.8 YPC, 12 TDs.


2005:

2218 yards total, 18 TDs total.

1740 yards rushing, 8.7 YPC, 16 TDs.

478 Receiving yards, 12.9 YPR, 2 TDs.


Did Reggie really have a better season? I certainly think it's debatable.

[joseephuss]

Sell, lets see....

2005:

4029 yards total, 38 TDs total.

65.2% completion, 3036 yards passing, 26 TDs, 10 INTs.

993 yards rushing, 6.8 YPC, 12 TDs.


2005:

2218 yards total, 18 TDs total.

1740 yards rushing, 8.7 YPC, 16 TDs.

478 Receiving yards, 12.9 YPR, 2 TDs.


Did Reggie really have a better season? I certainly think it's debatable.

At the time the award was given, VY was leading the country in passing efficiency.

I think both guys were very deserving that year.

I agree with the idea of stripping Bush of the award and not giving it to anyone else.

[CATCH17]

Sell, lets see....

2005:

4029 yards total, 38 TDs total.

65.2% completion, 3036 yards passing, 26 TDs, 10 INTs.

993 yards rushing, 6.8 YPC, 12 TDs.


2005:

2218 yards total, 18 TDs total.

1740 yards rushing, 8.7 YPC, 16 TDs.

478 Receiving yards, 12.9 YPR, 2 TDs.


Did Reggie really have a better season? I certainly think it's debatable.

At the time the award was given, VY was leading the country in passing efficiency.

I think both guys were very deserving that year.

I agree with the idea of stripping Bush of the award and not giving it to anyone else.

Don't forget that Reggie did all of that while splitting carries.


Also, during the season, it wasn't even a debate. Reggie was far and away the best player in the country and the votes at the time show that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

At the time the award was given, VY was leading the country in passing efficiency.

I think both guys were very deserving that year.

I agree with the idea of stripping Bush of the award and not giving it to anyone else.


I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I think the award is a bit hallow if you show up 5 years later and drop it off to somebody else but on the other hand, I thought then, as I do now, that Young was more deserving of the award.

If they want to leave it vacant, then I'm OK with that. If they wanted to give it to Young and he wanted it, then I'd be OK with that too.

I just don't agree with the statement that Bush was the only deserving player that year.

[Dallas]

Don't forget that Reggie did all of that while splitting carries.


Also, during the season, it wasn't even a debate. Reggie was far and away the best player in the country and the votes at the time show that.

But Vince wasn't getting 1000's of dollars from crooked agents. The parents of Vince also were not being put up in a fantastic SOCAL home for months on end for free.

We could do the ...yahhhh but Vince didn't thing all night... ;)


Bush CHEATED the system and got caught. That's a cheater bro, no matter how you want to spin it. :cool:

[ABQCOWBOY]

Don't forget that Reggie did all of that while splitting carries.


Also, during the season, it wasn't even a debate. Reggie was far and away the best player in the country and the votes at the time show that.

No, I don't agree with this at all. Heck, lots of players split carries in the backfield. That's not new. However, if you wanted to make that argument, then you would also have to acknowledge the fact that Reggie played on a team that was loaded with talent. You couldn't line up and try to focus on stopping Bush because there were plenty of players on that team that could hurt you. With Young, you could focus on stopping him and I would have to say that this would be something that would favor Young in this debate.

As far as not being debatable, your dead wrong. Young was ahead on most ballets till that Fresno State overtime game. Had the vote been taken after the season, Young would have won hands down. I don't think it's fair to say that Reggie was the runaway, clear cut choice the whole year.

[Dallas]

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I think the award is a bit hallow if you show up 5 years later and drop it off to somebody else but on the other hand, I thought then, as I do now, that Young was more deserving of the award.

If they want to leave it vacant, then I'm OK with that. If they wanted to give it to Young and he wanted it, then I'd be OK with that too.

I just don't agree with the statement that Bush was the only deserving player that year.


But what if they make USC lose the W's that year including the NC game? Would you be "OK" w/ that? :D

[ABQCOWBOY]

But what if they make USC lose the W's that year including the NC game? Would you be "OK" w/ that? :D


Well, they already lost the NC game so that point is irrelevant IMO. If they decide to take away the wins, that's up to the NCAA. The horse is already out of the Barn. All the players are gone, the coach is in the NFL, the recruiting class from those years are come and gone and USC has benefited as such. It's kinda pointless to worry of that IMO but whatever the NCAA wants to do there is fine by me.

[Dallas]

Well, they already lost the NC game so that point is irrelevant IMO. If they decide to take away the wins, that's up to the NCAA. The horse is already out of the Barn. All the players are gone, the coach is in the NFL, the recruiting class from those years are come and gone and USC has benefited as such. It's kinda pointless to worry of that IMO but whatever the NCAA wants to do there is fine by me.

Im sorry. I was meaning the 2004 BCS win against..... Oklahoma. :D Wasn't UCS being punished retroactively back into 2004?

USA Today reported (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/pac10/2010-05-19-bcs-policy-usc-bush_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip) that the BCS in 2007 adopted a policy "calling for teams' BCS appearances and BCS titles to be vacated when major rules violations subsequently are discovered and the institutions are sanctioned by the NCAA."

Bush was at the center of a four-year investigation of USC's athletic program. If the NCAA deems that USC must vacate wins in games in which Bush participated, the BCS could act to strip the Trojans of a title won with a 55-19 rout of Oklahoma.


Now this doesn't mean I would want OU to get the title. Oklahoma was clearing trounced in that game. I was more or less looking for your opinion on that outcome if there ever was one. There still may be.

[Kangaroo]

I think it is stupid at this point and the NCAA needs to do a better job and not waiting four years to rectify the issue it is stupid.

The rumors where out when the season started why did it take 4 years for it to matter

[Dallas]

I think it is stupid at this point and the NCAA needs to do a better job and not waiting four years to rectify the issue it is stupid.

The rumors where out when the season started why did it take 4 years for it to matter


USC being the darlings of the NCAA might have something to do w/ it? ;)

[Sam I Am]

I think it is stupid at this point and the NCAA needs to do a better job and not waiting four years to rectify the issue it is stupid.

The rumors where out when the season started why did it take 4 years for it to matter

Due process?

[DFWJC]

Give it to the man who deserves it most! Vince Young.
I'm not even a hard-core UT guy, but I could not agree more with VY deserving it originally.

[Kangaroo]

Due process?

The NCAA drug their feet on the research they turned a slight blind eye for years at USC when they where the media darling and making a bunch of money for the NCAA.

[jimmy40]

Im sorry. I was meaning the 2004 BCS win against..... Oklahoma. :D Wasn't UCS being punished retroactively back into 2004?

USA Today reported (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/pac10/2010-05-19-bcs-policy-usc-bush_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip) that the BCS in 2007 adopted a policy "calling for teams' BCS appearances and BCS titles to be vacated when major rules violations subsequently are discovered and the institutions are sanctioned by the NCAA."

Bush was at the center of a four-year investigation of USC's athletic program. If the NCAA deems that USC must vacate wins in games in which Bush participated, the BCS could act to strip the Trojans of a title won with a 55-19 rout of Oklahoma.


Now this doesn't mean I would want OU to get the title. Oklahoma was clearing trounced in that game. I was more or less looking for your opinion on that outcome if there ever was one. There still may be.

Now wouldn't that be something, OU being awarded a title because the other team was cheating.

[CATCH17]

No, I don't agree with this at all. Heck, lots of players split carries in the backfield. That's not new. However, if you wanted to make that argument, then you would also have to acknowledge the fact that Reggie played on a team that was loaded with talent. You couldn't line up and try to focus on stopping Bush because there were plenty of players on that team that could hurt you. With Young, you could focus on stopping him and I would have to say that this would be something that would favor Young in this debate.

As far as not being debatable, your dead wrong. Young was ahead on most ballets till that Fresno State overtime game. Had the vote been taken after the season, Young would have won hands down. I don't think it's fair to say that Reggie was the runaway, clear cut choice the whole year.

It's a regular season trophy though. You can't take the National title into account.

[burmafrd]

If you had taken the vote after the NC game Young would have won it. That was part of the season as well.

Frankly those saying he should not be stripped are basically saying there should be no consequences when you break the rules. Deny it all you want but that is the truth.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Due process?

I think it's more likely USC was a money tree for all parties concerned. You notice USC didn't get nailed till after they started their downward slide. It's all money.

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's a regular season trophy though. You can't take the National title into account.

http://www.heisman.com/index.php#

Not according to the official site. I can find no language that specifies this trophy as a "Regular Season Award". In fact, here is what it says about the award and what it is based on.

"the Heisman Trophy Trust of New York City, will award the annual Heisman Memorial Trophy to an individual who deserves designation as the most outstanding college football player in the United States"

Keep in mind that when the Heisman was first created, there were no bowls that decided who was champion. The season ended and the AP picked a champion.

[CATCH17]

http://www.heisman.com/index.php#

Not according to the official site. I can find no language that specifies this trophy as a "Regular Season Award". In fact, here is what it says about the award and what it is based on.

"the Heisman Trophy Trust of New York City, will award the annual Heisman Memorial Trophy to an individual who deserves designation as the most outstanding college football player in the United States"

Keep in mind that when the Heisman was first created, there were no bowls that decided who was champion. The season ended and the AP picked a champion.

Nice find lol.....

I still don't think you should take the National Title into account considering no player has ever had their Bowl game taken into account.

[joseephuss]

http://www.heisman.com/index.php#

Not according to the official site. I can find no language that specifies this trophy as a "Regular Season Award". In fact, here is what it says about the award and what it is based on.

"the Heisman Trophy Trust of New York City, will award the annual Heisman Memorial Trophy to an individual who deserves designation as the most outstanding college football player in the United States"

Keep in mind that when the Heisman was first created, there were no bowls that decided who was champion. The season ended and the AP picked a champion.

The vote is held prior to the bowl season, so that kind of insinuates it is a regular season award. The same is true for all of the other college football awards.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nice find lol.....

I still don't think you should take the National Title into account considering no player has ever had their Bowl game taken into account.

As I said earlier, I don't really have a dog in this fight, other then to say that I don't believe it was clear cut that Bush was the best player that year.

I mean, if you really look at how they vote, they don't even wait till the real end of the season before they submit votes. I mean, not even talking about Bowl Games, just the real end of the season for all of these conferences.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The vote is held prior to the bowl season, so that kind of insinuates it is a regular season award. The same is true for all of the other college football awards.

That is because of how the vote was set up historically. In 36, I believe it was 36, the vote was taken at the end of the season. That date is still the date the vote is taken. As I mentioned before, the vote is taken even before the end of the season for most conferences. There has been a lot of talk about changing the voting dates. It has not been done but I do think it should be. It's not right to vote on this award when the regular season isn't even completed.

So no, I don't really agree that it's a regular season award. How can it be when the regular season isn't even over when the vote takes place?

[joseephuss]

That is because of how the vote was set up historically. In 36, I believe it was 36, the vote was taken at the end of the season. That date is still the date the vote is taken. As I mentioned before, the vote is taken even before the end of the season for most conferences. There has been a lot of talk about changing the voting dates. It has not been done but I do think it should be. It's not right to vote on this award when the regular season isn't even completed.

So no, I don't really agree that it's a regular season award. How can it be when the regular season isn't even over when the vote takes place?

The Bowl season traditionally is not considered a part of the regular season. There were so few bowl games that it wasn't fair to judge a few teams or players because they had an extra game. That is why the bowl games used to not count toward records. That has changed recently. I believe it was in 1999, that they started including performances in bowl games as part of the records.

I think the Heisman vote will eventually change as well, but for now they don't consider Bowl games.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Bowl season traditionally is not considered a part of the regular season. There were so few bowl games that it wasn't fair to judge a few teams or players because they had an extra game. That is why the bowl games used to not count toward records. That has changed recently. I believe it was in 1999, that they started including performances in bowl games as part of the records.

I think the Heisman vote will eventually change as well, but for now they don't consider Bowl games.

Most of the voting is already done, even before the Conference Championships take place, which should be a part of the regular season IMO. I agree with you thou, I think it will have to be changed at some point.

[joseephuss]

Most of the voting is already done, even before the Conference Championships take place, which should be a part of the regular season IMO. I agree with you thou, I think it will have to be changed at some point.

The guys that vote before the conference championships are dopes anyway.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The guys that vote before the conference championships are dopes anyway.

Yeah, but the Heisman people pressure them to do it because they want all the votes in and tallied. Why, I don't know. It makes no sense at all.

Heck, even if everybody waited, you still couldn't make a good vote because you couldn't possibly watch all the games in time. You would need a good week just to really watch the games and make good evaluations. It's crazy how they do it. Tradition is a good think IMO. I love it and think that it makes most things better. However, in the case of the Heisman voting, I think they need to ease up on that one particular tradition of voting dates. I know it's been like that and that's tradition but it hurts the integrity of the award and that's not good. That award should be, first and foremost, about integrity IMO.

[jimmy40]

Yeah, but the Heisman people pressure them to do it because they want all the votes in and tallied. Why, I don't know. It makes no sense at all.

Heck, even if everybody waited, you still couldn't make a good vote because you couldn't possibly watch all the games in time. You would need a good week just to really watch the games and make good evaluations. It's crazy how they do it. Tradition is a good think IMO. I love it and think that it makes most things better. However, in the case of the Heisman voting, I think they need to ease up on that one particular tradition of voting dates. I know it's been like that and that's tradition but it hurts the integrity of the award and that's not good. That award should be, first and foremost, about integrity IMO.too bad 80% of the voters made up their mind after seeing this play a 1,000 times on ESPN after this game.
xwS5x920i8A

[Draegerman]

I actually did have a dog in this fight (VY) and would like to add my 2 cents into the mix.

First of all, it took this long (5 years) to complete their investigation because the NCAA had no leverage they could use to get Bush to cooperate with the committee - only USC itself. Bush was already long gone by the time this story made national headlines and those affiliated with USC (coaches, alumni, etc.) were deliberately dragging their feet before the truth was finally revealed. Nothing was to be gained by Bush's cooperation (other than doing the right thing and having a clear concious) and it would have cost him millions in future earnings if he had told the truth.

Secondly, his winning it on the field did have merit. He was a great player and his numbers backed him up. But my dispute was that he wasn't as important to USC's success as Vince Young was to Texas that season. This, of course, is debatable but I thought it carried more weight and was proven right when USC had a 4th and 1 at midfield and a few minutes left on the clock in the 4th qtr in the NC against the Longhorns. All USC had to do was to make that first down and the game would have been in the bag for them to claim their third straight NC trophy. The UT db assigned to shadow Bush on that play shockingly realized he wasn't in the formation, so his quick thinking caused him to blow through the offensive line to stop Lindale White short of the first down marker. Bush wasn't even considered as an option - even as subterfuge to give the defense something to think about before the play was actually executed. One beat writer from the DMN agreed with me but stated that it made a better case for Young as mvp rather than being Heisman worthy.

My reply to him was, what's the ****ing difference? (true story)

Yes, I realize why the media can't consider the bowl games for Heisman candidates and I understand it's intent. But there were other factors that needed to be taken into account and even though they were intangibles at best, they still supported a case for VY. For starters, the Trojans were the darlings of the media. They were given a lot more coverage on major sports networks because they were on a championship roll (two trophies and counting). Exposure goes a long way - especially with the media that have a vote for the Heisman. Reggie, it could be argued, had a better season the year before when Leinart (his teammate) had won it. I felt (and I'm not alone here) that this 2005 Heisman award was a makeup by the selection committee for what he accomplished in 2004. Nothing wrong with that especially since he had another great (although not as great) season the year he finally did win it.

However, here's why I thought VY was the better choice for Heisman consideration in 2005:

On Sep 10, UT went up into the Horseshoe to take on then #2 Ohio State. Longhorns were down 22-16 late in the 4th quarter when VY made a spectacular throw to Limas Sweed for the go ahead td with 02m:37s left to play. The Longhorn's defense sealed the deal with a safety to beat OSU, 25-22. This victory told the nation that Texas was in clear contention for the NC and that VY was the man to beat for the Heisman.

On Oct 28, UT brought their 8-0 record into Stillwater, OK to face the lowly Oklahoma State Cowboys. The 1st half of that game was disastrous for the Longhorns with the Cowboys leading them 28-7 before Pino (UT kicker) managed a 45 yd fg with no time remaining on the clock to make it 28-10, OSU, to end the half. Young single-handedly carried his team on his back by scoring 35 unanswered points in the 2nd half, leading to another Texas victory, 47-28. The problem with this is that the game had not been picked up by a major network the night they played. Most of the voting members did not get to see the greatest 2nd half play of a collegiate quarterback - ever! They simply read about it the next day.

Going back to the NC game against USC (I know...I know...it doesn't count but humor me anyway). I only provided half the reason to my point by showing why Bush wasn't as important to his team as Vince was to UT. When Texas' defense stopped USC on that 4th and 1 (and no Bush in sight - sounds strangly homophobic, doesn't it?;)), UT was down 38-33 and VY and his offense had only 2m:39s left in the 4th quarter to move the ball 56 yds into the Promise Land. VY capped that drive off with an incredible 8 yd sprint to get to the endzone that completely juked the entire USC defense out of their Nikes. Game over, UT wins first NC in 40+ years, 41-38. At the very least, this game probably gave some of the Bush supporters, that had already casted their Heisman ballot for him, doubt about their decision. At the very worst, it probably caused most of them regret.

Regardless, it happened and we all had to live with it. And we did...

Until now.

Someone mentioned on this thread about taking the voting rights away from the media for the Heisman but make no mistake about it, they're probably the lesser of all evils when you consider your choices: 1)Media, 2)Coaches and 3) Us (the public - and we suck). They're not without fail but they're probably the most objective. With their deadlines, regional coverage of their specific sports teams and other external pressures that are job-related, they probably don't get to see much live football except for the major games that are nationally televised - and even then, not all of them. But even with all things considered, I'd still like to believe they are the most fair when it comes to the voting process, plus I think they have a better understanding of the honor of being allowed to submit a Heisman vote as well as the resposibility that goes with it.

With that said, I'd like to see them be given the right to recast their vote again. I'm not saying they have to (they could vote to abstain) but it should be their choice (they earned it). And although what Reggie Bush did off the field was not as reprehensible as say what O.J. did, he did violate rules during his time with USC that made him "ineligible" for the 2005 season. Everything he accomplished on the field for that season - didn't count. And the heads of the Heisman Committee really had no choice but to strip it away from him once the NCAA investigation was finally completed. But had this been brought to light 5 years ago before the Heisman vote had been cast, VY would have been the overwhelming winner.

Five years later, I think VY still gets it if the media is allowed a "do-over".

[Draegerman]

Reggie Bush decided today to end all the speculation surrounding his 2005 Heisman Trophy and forfeit the award.

[Smiles Baustin]

He was the best Player in CFB that year, he shouldn't have to give back the award.
IF reggie had any goolas he would make them come take it from him forcefully

[Smiles Baustin]

I actually did have a dog in this fight (VY) and would like to add my 2 cents into the mix.

First of all, it took this long (5 years) to complete their investigation because the NCAA had no leverage they could use to get Bush to cooperate with the committee - only USC itself. Bush was already long gone by the time this story made national headlines and those affiliated with USC (coaches, alumni, etc.) were deliberately dragging their feet before the truth was finally revealed. Nothing was to be gained by Bush's cooperation (other than doing the right thing and having a clear concious) and it would have cost him millions in future earnings if he had told the truth.

Secondly, his winning it on the field did have merit. He was a great player and his numbers backed him up. But my dispute was that he wasn't as important to USC's success as Vince Young was to Texas that season. This, of course, is debatable but I thought it carried more weight and was proven right when USC had a 4th and 1 at midfield and a few minutes left on the clock in the 4th qtr in the NC against the Longhorns. All USC had to do was to make that first down and the game would have been in the bag for them to claim their third straight NC trophy. The UT db assigned to shadow Bush on that play shockingly realized he wasn't in the formation, so his quick thinking caused him to blow through the offensive line to stop Lindale White short of the first down marker. Bush wasn't even considered as an option - even as subterfuge to give the defense something to think about before the play was actually executed. One beat writer from the DMN agreed with me but stated that it made a better case for Young as mvp rather than being Heisman worthy.

My reply to him was, what's the ****ing difference? (true story)

Yes, I realize why the media can't consider the bowl games for Heisman candidates and I understand it's intent. But there were other factors that needed to be taken into account and even though they were intangibles at best, they still supported a case for VY. For starters, the Trojans were the darlings of the media. They were given a lot more coverage on major sports networks because they were on a championship roll (two trophies and counting). Exposure goes a long way - especially with the media that have a vote for the Heisman. Reggie, it could be argued, had a better season the year before when Leinart (his teammate) had won it. I felt (and I'm not alone here) that this 2005 Heisman award was a makeup by the selection committee for what he accomplished in 2004. Nothing wrong with that especially since he had another great (although not as great) season the year he finally did win it.

However, here's why I thought VY was the better choice for Heisman consideration in 2005:

On Sep 10, UT went up into the Horseshoe to take on then #2 Ohio State. Longhorns were down 22-16 late in the 4th quarter when VY made a spectacular throw to Limas Sweed for the go ahead td with 02m:37s left to play. The Longhorn's defense sealed the deal with a safety to beat OSU, 25-22. This victory told the nation that Texas was in clear contention for the NC and that VY was the man to beat for the Heisman.

On Oct 28, UT brought their 8-0 record into Stillwater, OK to face the lowly Oklahoma State Cowboys. The 1st half of that game was disastrous for the Longhorns with the Cowboys leading them 28-7 before Pino (UT kicker) managed a 45 yd fg with no time remaining on the clock to make it 28-10, OSU, to end the half. Young single-handedly carried his team on his back by scoring 35 unanswered points in the 2nd half, leading to another Texas victory, 47-28. The problem with this is that the game had not been picked up by a major network the night they played. Most of the voting members did not get to see the greatest 2nd half play of a collegiate quarterback - ever! They simply read about it the next day.

Going back to the NC game against USC (I know...I know...it doesn't count but humor me anyway). I only provided half the reason to my point by showing why Bush wasn't as important to his team as Vince was to UT. When Texas' defense stopped USC on that 4th and 1 (and no Bush in sight - sounds strangly homophobic, doesn't it?;)), UT was down 38-33 and VY and his offense had only 2m:39s left in the 4th quarter to move the ball 56 yds into the Promise Land. VY capped that drive off with an incredible 8 yd sprint to get to the endzone that completely juked the entire USC defense out of their Nikes. Game over, UT wins first NC in 40+ years, 41-38. At the very least, this game probably gave some of the Bush supporters, that had already casted their Heisman ballot for him, doubt about their decision. At the very worst, it probably caused most of them regret.

Regardless, it happened and we all had to live with it. And we did...

Until now.

Someone mentioned on this thread about taking the voting rights away from the media for the Heisman but make no mistake about it, they're probably the lesser of all evils when you consider your choices: 1)Media, 2)Coaches and 3) Us (the public - and we suck). They're not without fail but they're probably the most objective. With their deadlines, regional coverage of their specific sports teams and other external pressures that are job-related, they probably don't get to see much live football except for the major games that are nationally televised - and even then, not all of them. But even with all things considered, I'd still like to believe they are the most fair when it comes to the voting process, plus I think they have a better understanding of the honor of being allowed to submit a Heisman vote as well as the resposibility that goes with it.

With that said, I'd like to see them be given the right to recast their vote again. I'm not saying they have to (they could vote to abstain) but it should be their choice (they earned it). And although what Reggie Bush did off the field was not as reprehensible as say what O.J. did, he did violate rules during his time with USC that made him "ineligible" for the 2005 season. Everything he accomplished on the field for that season - didn't count. And the heads of the Heisman Committee really had no choice but to strip it away from him once the NCAA investigation was finally completed. But had this been brought to light 5 years ago before the Heisman vote had been cast, VY would have been the overwhelming winner.

Five years later, I think VY still gets it if the media is allowed a "do-over".

http://i36.tinypic.com/rk1vn4.gif

Im gon keep it 100 wit you...

no one's gon read all that

[Dallas]

http://i36.tinypic.com/rk1vn4.gif (http://i36.tinypic.com/rk1vn4.gif)

Im gon keep it 100 wit you...

no one's gon read all that


Baustin, you're a baddy daddy lamatai tebby chai!

Drae, he was rejuvenated. You hear that? Rejuvenated. He was juvenated before, lost it... and got juvinated again. Rejuvenated!

[T-RO]

Here's how this breaks out.

The NCAA calls Bush. They say, "We're in a corner with the rules. If you don't give it back voluntarily then we'll have to strip it from you. Which do you prefer?"

And suddenly Reggie Bush became an honest man of sterling integrity, handing his trophy back.

[Sam I Am]

Here's how this breaks out.

The NCAA calls Bush. They say, "We're in a corner with the rules. If you don't give it back voluntarily then we'll have to strip it from you. Which do you prefer?"

And suddenly Reggie Bush became an honest man of sterling integrity, handing his trophy back.

I don't consider it honest and showing integrity by admitting you cheated when you're already busted. You were proven dishonest and showed a complete lack of integrity when you cheated in the first place.

I heard many Yankee fans saying "At least Jason Giambi admitted he cheated.". No, he didn't admit he was a cheater. He got cold hard busted. Until he got busted, he hadn't said a damn thing about his cheating. Guilt had no bearing on him admitting he cheated. To admit you cheated out of guilt is a show of integrity. (even if it laps when you initially cheated) It's only morons like Roger Clemens that is so freaking stupid and self-absorbed that he continues to deny cheating after he is already busted for doing it.

[Draegerman]

http://i36.tinypic.com/rk1vn4.gif

Im gon keep it 100 wit you...

no one's gon read all that

I purposefully do that in order to prevent the "Jerry Springer Generation" from becoming enlightened.

;)

[T-RO]

I don't consider it honest and showing integrity by admitting you cheated when you're already busted. You were proven dishonest and showed a complete lack of integrity when you cheated in the first place.

You need lessons on discerning sarcasm. It could not have been more blatant.