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".
