Reggie Bush getting stripped of Heisman trophy

[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?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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

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. Wasn't UCS being punished retroactively back into 2004?

USA Today reported 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?

 

[YosemiteSam]

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. Wasn't UCS being punished retroactively back into 2004?

USA Today reported 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.