Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Is it right to take Reggie Bush's Heisman Trophy?
Check out this Joe Posnanski article at SI.com. He makes some good points about the realities of college football. While most of us would like to believe in the narrative that these athletes only play for school pride, the reality is there is a good bit of money involved and, eventually, some of it is going to get to the standout athletes. He tell's this story to justify his opinion that Reggie Bush should keep the 2005 Heisman Trophy. According to Posnanski, the award goes to the "most outstanding college football player," not the purest, most ethical one. I certainly understand his point, but if we want to go by the letter of the law, the award goes to the most outstanding eligible college football player. To me, that is all the justification you need to take Bush's Heisman way. Yes, he was good. Yes, he was one of the best players to ever play. But he wasn't eligible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think I disagree with you Sen. Hankins. I do believe that punishment deserves to be handed out to those who have broken rules, but going back and taking away championships and trophies is just stupid. Bottom line is, when you look back a few years from now, you will know that USC won the NC and that Bush was the best athlete in college football that year. Sure what he did was dumb, but it's not like he was taking steroids.
ReplyDeleteI mean, should we take away Ben Frank's discovery of electricity b/c he was stupid enough to fly a kite in a thunderstorm? Hitler may have been the greatest mastermind of all time, but should he be discredited b/c he killed a few jews?
I know those are really irrelevant, and honestly I believe there needs to be rules in place and they should be followed, but I'm just not down for going back in time and taking things away.
Unless of course the NCAA goes back and takes the NC and Heisman away from Bama.
Well, Dark Lord, allow me to retort. Reggie Bush hasn't received any punishment from this (aside from being barred from USC's campus). Taking his Heisman Trophy and his legitimate claim to it would be a pretty big blow. But also, let me reiterate what was said in the original post. I don't think the Heisman Trust should take his trophy because he did something immoral or stupid. I think they should take his trophy because he wasn't eligible to receive it in the first place. Technically, as soon as he accepted money from an agent he should have been disqualified from participating as a member of the USC football team. So, if you aren't a member of the team, then how can you win an award? But this is a totally separate issue from whether or not what he did should be against the rules. When he took the money, it was against the rules and consequences should be suffered.
ReplyDeleteWell, my point is that I'm against taking things away that have already been given out. IF the NCAA works on a 'innocent until proven guilty' basis then he and USC were indeed eligible to win all those things until it was proven they were cheating, and that took 5 years to do. I think if you are going to take accomplishments away from someone, it needs to be immediate, such as testing for drugs before and after the Olympics.
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying a murderer can go free if you don't catch them before they kill someone.
ReplyDeleteWell if they haven't killed someone yet, they are not a murderer.
ReplyDeleteAnd a cheater isn't a cheater until they cheat. So if the cheater hasn't cheated then how can you catch them cheating?
ReplyDeleteAlright boys....don't make me have to separate you two.
ReplyDeleteHere is my take on the situation: First off, I think the way RB handled this situation AFTER the fact is completely dispicable. Had he come forward and admitted he accepted these benefits and USC nor any of its employees had any knowledge of said actions, USC would not have received NEARLY as harsh a penalty. Even if he had waited until after his civil trial his admission would have benefited his university greatly.
That said, RB has received punishment for his actions. His name has been removed from not only the record books but from the campus, stadium, and athletic facilities. He is hated by many who prior to this loved him and reveared him. He probably won't be able to return to games and events in his old age and be honored as great players are (and even if he does his reception will be mixed). So imo...he has been punished...even if he doesn't realize it until years later.
I dont think he should lose his hiesman trophy (the designation or the actual trophy). I agree he has been deemed ineligable...by a corrupt organization and based on the rules of a system that is completely...well...fucked up. That's fine...as a college football fan we all are used to the unfair nature of it's economy and rule enforcement. However...the Hiesman Trust is an entirely separate organization. Regardless of the NCAA's ruling...he was the "most outstanding player in college football" in 1995. I'll go a step further...he did things we had never seen on a football field before...he was a fucking bad man with the football in his hands! The Hiesman Trust criteria does not include the word "eligable"...and he was a college football player and did nothing to increase his on field performance.
So I think he should keep the award...and if they do (which I think they are going to) take the recognition of the award away...would not give the physical trophy back. He earned the trophy on the field and he should tell the Hiesman Trust to get fucked.
**side note-This: "Hitler may have been the greatest mastermind of all time, but should he be discredited b/c he killed a few jews?" Made me literally fall out of my chair laughing. Thats right...i was leaning back in my chair and lost my balance...my head hit first. I'm pretty sure that was God smiiting me for laughing at that.
**Also...I know I am an awful speller...so no need to call me out Bill! haha
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA couple of things:
ReplyDelete1. If the award doesn't use the word "eligible", then I don't think they should be able to take it. If the award does say something about eligibility, then they should take it. End of discussion.
2. I realize that The Heisman Trust has nothing to do with the NCAA, but this debate is closely related to how ridiculously arbitrary the NCAA is with rule enforcement. The Masoli case is a good example. Sure he may have broken the spirit of the law, but according to the letter of the law he was eligible. However, since the only rule the NCAA ever consistenly applies is the one that says the NCAA gets to do whatever the fuck it wants, they decided to rule Masoli ineligible before they changed their minds. Another great example: Marcel Dareus gets a 2 game suspension for receiving $2000 in improper benefits from an agent while AJ Greene gets a 4 game suspension for essentially the same thing. I get so sick of everything in NCAA football being so arbitrary. If RB actually broke a Heisman Trust rule, then get the trophy. If not, Heisman Trust, GTFO of RB's biznazz.