04/18/24
September 07, 2010
Sources: Reggie Bush Will Lose Heisman: Reggie Bush will become the first player in the 75-year history of the Heisman Trophy to have the award taken away from him, Yahoo Sports has been told by "two sources close to the Heisman trust." The NCAA ruled in June that Bush committed multiple violations by accepting cash, gifts and other impermissible benefits while playing for USC during his 2005 Heisman-winning season.
Did he break the rules or did his parents break the rules?
posted by yzelda4045 at 04:37 PM on September 07, 2010
dyams, by breaking those rules (or by his parents breaking them), his eligibility to play was voided. Since he shouldn't have been on the field, his performance becomes null and void.
posted by apoch at 04:58 PM on September 07, 2010
That is kind of like saying Pete Rose broke some rules about gambling so his performance on the field is null and void. To me it is pretty hard to deny an athletic performance based on a non performance related technicality.
I mean either Reggie Bush was the best college football player that year or he wasn't. The fact that he accepted money he shouldn't have does little to diminish his performance and more to diminish the Trophy itself. Lets face it, this is punitive move and nothing more.
posted by Atheist at 05:07 PM on September 07, 2010
What exactly does it mean at this point?
One thing it means is that a cheater no longer tarnishes the Heismans with his presence.
This move isn't punitive; it's corrective. The Heisman ballot states that candidates must be in compliance with NCAA bylaws. Bush was not.
posted by rcade at 05:15 PM on September 07, 2010
What rcade said, doubled.
posted by irunfromclones at 05:20 PM on September 07, 2010
No qualms with taking it away from Bush, for all the reasons noted above. The question is: Should it be vacant, or retroactively given to the runner-up (Vince Young)? I believe it should be the latter.
posted by TheQatarian at 05:54 PM on September 07, 2010
Should it be vacant, or retroactively given to the runner-up (Vince Young)?
My initial thoughts when this came up awhile ago was that it should remain vacant, but rcade's comment makes me lean the other direction. "Candidates must be in compliance with NCAA bylaws." Vince Young was the best player in compliance with NCAA bylaws.
posted by graymatters at 06:23 PM on September 07, 2010
It all seems somewhat moot. Bush's award is rescinded, but it doesn't re-write the reality. It just attempts to correct history? Re-write history? What?
So - does Young accept the award? Wouldn't it be cool, if he just said "Naw, that's Reggie's.... Also I got paid, too - they just never caught me."
So then, the only people that will recognize this new reality, are the Heisman people themselves. Everyone else will remember that Bush was the best.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:01 PM on September 07, 2010
What Weedy said, doubled.
Stop thinking big-time college football is clean and enjoy the game on the field, just like we need to do with every professional sport.
posted by dyams at 09:09 PM on September 07, 2010
There are 73 Heisman winners who didn't get declared ineligible in the year they won the award. Don't rob Bush of his accomplishment. He's about to become the first ex-Heisman winner in history.
As for what people remember, I think Bush will be remembered more for stuffing his pockets in college than for his athletic performance. It's not like he's doing anything with the Saints to make his NFL career noteworthy.
Maybe he can use some of his money to buy O.J.'s Heisman.
posted by rcade at 10:10 PM on September 07, 2010
posted by boredom_08 at 10:50 PM on September 07, 2010
It's not like he's doing anything with the Saints to make his NFL career noteworthy
He's averaged almost 1,000 total yards a season for four seasons with a Super Bowl win to boot. That sounds noteworthy to me.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:52 PM on September 07, 2010
As for what people remember, I think Bush will be remembered more for stuffing his pockets in college than for his athletic performance. It's not like he's doing anything with the Saints to make his NFL career noteworthy.
That's too bad. You missed some great performances if that's the case. Guy was a gazelle in college.
Honestly though, I don't think it matters at all if the award is rescinded (this, however, may not be the case as of this writing). It doesn't even matter what everyone remembers. It wouldn't change a thing. Reggie Bush won the Heisman in 2005. That's what happened. Taking it away after the fact is like taking away Jim Thorpe's medals. They didn't cheat on the field. It's a win, followed by a technicality. A rather large technicality, but one nonetheless.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:08 AM on September 08, 2010
In my mind, Reggie Bush won the 2005 Heisman regardless if they take it away or not. Should it be taken away from him? Technically, yes. Does it really matter? Not really. The only thing that will change is that Bush's story to his grandkids about winning a Super Bowl won't be preceded by the story how he won the Heisman. Instead it will be replaced by the story of how he was the best player on the football field in 2005.
posted by Andy1087 at 01:19 AM on September 08, 2010
One thing it means is that a cheater no longer tarnishes the Heismans with his presence.
I don't know about 'cheater', I mean it wasn't like he took PED's to enhance his performance o the field the year he won the award. I can count a few other past Heisman winners that actually tarnish the Heisman more than Bush ever did.
posted by BornIcon at 07:16 AM on September 08, 2010
There are 73 Heisman winners who didn't get declared ineligible in the year they won the award.
Yet. Who knows, right? It's been five years since Bush won his. Maybe if we do a thorough investigation of each, we can get the NCAA to declare some more athletes ineligible. Further, we should save blood and urine samples forever in case some new tests in the future show that one of those athletes was juicing.
posted by bperk at 07:21 AM on September 08, 2010
I can count a few other past Heisman winners that actually tarnish the Heisman more than Bush ever did.
In fact, you could get off to a good start by just looking at it from a USC-only perspective.
Mike Garrett, for one, and the only man to ever get more Heisman votes than Bush, Orenthal Simpson.
posted by beaverboard at 08:28 AM on September 08, 2010
He's averaged almost 1,000 total yards a season for four seasons with a Super Bowl win to boot.
That's 63 yards a game. He's never been to a Pro Bowl. For a second overall pick, he's a big disappointment.
It's been five years since Bush won his. Maybe if we do a thorough investigation of each, we can get the NCAA to declare some more athletes ineligible.
Why is it every time a big-name athlete is found to have done something wrong, we get to hear non-specific claims that everybody else was doing it too? This is cut-and-dried. The NCAA found after a ridiculously thorough investigation that Bush broke the rules. Now he has to pay the consequences.
Plenty of big-name college athletes don't take payoffs. This isn't the old days. SMU's death penalty and the punishments laid down to other programs have clamped down on that kind of stuff.
posted by rcade at 09:04 AM on September 08, 2010
I don't know who else or if anyone else was doing it and neither does anyone else. As you say the NCAA had a ridiculously thorough investigation of one particular institution and one particular athlete over many years. If that doesn't give you pause, then great for you. However, I don't like pick and choose investigations, ever. I don't like them when they snare athletes I like or when they snare athletes I don't like. They are an affront to my sense of fairness.
posted by bperk at 09:23 AM on September 08, 2010
You seem to regard it as unfair that the NCAA was "ridiculously thorough." I think it's a reason to have confidence in the investigation. It's not like the NCAA singled out USC and has been ignoring other institutions. There have been numerous investigations, including a current one of the University of North Carolina.
posted by rcade at 09:36 AM on September 08, 2010
It's exactly like the NCAA singled out USC. The NCAA started their investigation in response to news reports. How can you have confidence in ad hoc rule enforcement based on Yahoo reporting?
posted by bperk at 09:42 AM on September 08, 2010
The PAC-10 was investigating Bush five months before the Yahoo Sports story broke alleging Bush had received payoffs, according to this timeline.
Even if that wasn't true, why would it matter if the NCAA began an investigation after the media caught wind of a player getting payoffs? Do you think any investigatory body initiates all of its own inquiries, as opposed to getting tipped off?
Your defense is like saying that a murderer should not be prosecuted because other murderers haven't been caught. Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. Keep your eye on the sparrow when the going gets narrow.
posted by rcade at 09:59 AM on September 08, 2010
You do seem to see this as murder. I tend to see it more like shoplifting. Sure, it's wrong, I guess... wait, is it even wrong?
The Heisman people have every right take back their trophy. Though, for me, this is just annoying. I don't really care who gets paid and Reggie Bush was amazing that year.
posted by tron7 at 10:37 AM on September 08, 2010
Plenty of big-name college athletes don't take payoffs.
Of course many don't. The problem is, with all the money involved in big-time division 1 college football, to think there aren't so many more that aren't breaking, or bending the rules, would be very naive. I'm all for Bush being held accountable, because he broke rules and got caught. Like so many rule-breakers, though, the emphasis becomes not getting caught instead of not breaking rules.
Money in college football will become a bigger and bigger problem. My computer screensaver is a aerial photo of Penn State's Beaver Stadium. The stadium his ridiculously huge. Off to the side is the division 1 Penn State baseball stadium. You could fit the baseball stadium's stands on one of the football stadium's sidelines. College football at the level we're talking about has become far too big, and connecting it to a college or university is ridiculous. The sport invites behavior such as what Bush did by using him to generate loads of cash, so before any group associated with the game starts to point their sanctimonious finger at individual athletes, they better take a long look at the game as a whole.
posted by dyams at 10:37 AM on September 08, 2010
Even if that wasn't true, why would it matter if the NCAA began an investigation after the media caught wind of a player getting payoffs?
The NCAA has tons of rules and lacks an ability to enforce them. The institution's subject to the rules also lack an ability to enforce them. As a result, they enforce them only occasionally. By definition, that is singling out someone or some institution for rule enforcement. To me, that is wrong. If you have a rule that you cannot enforce except sporadically, it is a bad rule and the rule or system of enforcement needs to be fixed. There is nothing right or fair about enforcing bad rules.
The PAC 10 initiated the investigation, according to the timeline you posted, in April 2006. The first article Yahoo published about the Bush family's house was in April 2006.
posted by bperk at 11:01 AM on September 08, 2010
I think the rules suck. If an athlete with a great amount of talent is generating a huge amount of income for a university who is paying the coach millions and investing in stadiums etc, why should he and his family live in poverty? Shouldn't potential agents, alumni, future business partners be able to invest in his obviously bright future. It is exactly what the schools do when the give a scholarship, and exactly what the government does when they give student loans to medical students. They are essentially gambling on the future ability of potentially high earners to repay the money in some way.
Trying to keep a corrupt system clean by purifying small pieces of it is ridiculous.
Maybe it is time for the NCAA to rethink this whole system of "amateur athletics" since it is the biggest money maker they have. Lets just accept the fact that the schools pay to bring school age talent to their athletic programs and allow the athlete students to obtain their share. Especially since none of these kids can really count on getting educated based on what I see coming out of their mouths as pro football and basketball players who are supposedly college graduates. Nobody can convince me a large portion of these guys had any interest in education or even literacy.
posted by Atheist at 11:54 AM on September 08, 2010
You do seem to see this as murder. I tend to see it more like shoplifting. Sure, it's wrong, I guess... wait, is it even wrong?
Are we really arguing whether "don't take money" is an important NCAA rule or not? Criminy.
I'm all for college athletes getting paid some of the massive revenue they generate -- at least enough so they don't have to work outside jobs. But until that's allowed, the ones who get paid under the table should be pursued and the schools punished. This is not a piddly rule. It's at the heart of amateur athletics.
Besides, attending USC costs $53,000 a year. Bush wasn't going uncompensated during the years he went to school.
Especially since none of these kids can really count on getting educated based on what I see coming out of their mouths as pro football and basketball players who are supposedly college graduates.
That's an incredibly weak rationalization. If a scholarship athlete gets out of college without an education, despite having a full ride and all the academic support from tutors he could ever want, that's nobody's fault but his own.
posted by rcade at 11:55 AM on September 08, 2010
This is not a piddly rule. It's at the heart of amateur athletics.
Actually, doesn't it also try to reduce the chance of point-shaving and other fixed game issues?
If "amateur" players get money from outside sources, that leaves them WIDE OPEN for the "providers" to add incentives to alter the outcome of the games.
posted by grum@work at 12:27 PM on September 08, 2010
Wouldn't the fact that they aren't getting anything at all (other than the possibility of an education) leave them wide open to add incentives to alter the outcome of the games?
I would expect the lowest paid player of a pro sport to throw a game for a few dollars before I would expect the highest paid player to do so.
posted by Ricardo at 12:40 PM on September 08, 2010
There are 2 questions that must be asked here:
1. Did Reggie Bush know that his parents were getting an exceptional deal for their living quarters?
2. Did Reggie Bush understand that this was probably in violation of the NCAA rules?
I know that my answer to both questions is "yes". So having this knowledge, what is Reggie Bush to do? In a simpler time, he would have gone to the USC Athletic Department, and asked them to cease their preferential treatment of him, lest he withdraw from the team. Has that happened outside the realm of fiction in the past 100 years? My point is that Bush knew he was doing something against the rules, but continued to do it. Once the violation became apparent, none should have objection to his paying the consequences of his actions.
This brings the question of whether the NCAA rules are anachronistic and invite frequent violation. If you are the child of a middle-class family, with parents and siblings who are not suffering the pangs of poverty while you bust your butt for free for your alma mater, then it is easy to play by the rules. On the other hand, one like Reggie Bush, whose family was in extreme financial difficulty, is faced with much pressure to improve the situation of his family. At the very least the rules should be modified in some way to allow for family financial support in hardship.
posted by Howard_T at 01:00 PM on September 08, 2010
This is not a piddly rule. It's at the heart of amateur athletics.
I guess. Though, it hardly seems like amateur athletics when there is so much money involved.
posted by tron7 at 01:01 PM on September 08, 2010
"That's an incredibly weak rationalization. If a scholarship athlete gets out of college without an education, despite having a full ride and all the academic support from tutors he could ever want, that's nobody's fault but his own."
Rcade - I disagree, if a student on an academic scholarship fails to live up to his academic responsibilities they can loose it. I think it is really hard to argue that the school gives a crap if a guy is producing on the field. There are plenty of four year grads coming out of major university athletic programs that appear to be one level above complete ignorance. Maybe the rules should be less about money and more about ensuring that these athletes leave school educationally qualified for more than football. If the colleges are just going to be a developmental league for the NFL and NBA, then maybe the NFL and NBA should contribute some money to good prospects to keep them going while they hone their skills for the pros while pretending to go to college. It is very hypocritical for the NCAA to pretend this is amateur athletics when in fact it is a business bigger than professional sports to which education takes a back seat. The colleges are responsible not to graduate any student that cannot perform academically to a required level. It reflects negatively on any institution that has grads out there giving television interviews with poor grammar and the communicative skills of a possum.
posted by Atheist at 01:48 PM on September 08, 2010
If people genuinely wish there was more amateurism and less money in college football, why is the only talk here about the major programs? There's some exciting football being played in the Football Championship Subdivision (the old I-AA). I caught the Montana-Appalachian State playoff game last year in the snow on TV, and it was epic.
Has that happened outside the realm of fiction in the past 100 years?
Jim Wacker self-reported at TCU on his Heisman-finalist running back Kenneth Davis and other players in 1985, hoping to reduce the NCAA penalty.
posted by rcade at 02:07 PM on September 08, 2010
why is the only talk here about the major programs?
Since this thread started regarding the Heisman Trophy, maybe the award needs to be given to a athlete who plays in a small Division 1 school. Only the biggest of the powerhouse programs have the candidates and winners.
posted by dyams at 02:31 PM on September 08, 2010
If people genuinely wish there was more amateurism and less money in college football, why is the only talk here about the major programs?
I just wish the money were spread around a little more equitably.
posted by bperk at 02:58 PM on September 08, 2010
Wouldn't the fact that they aren't getting anything at all (other than the possibility of an education) leave them wide open to add incentives to alter the outcome of the games?
I would expect the lowest paid player of a pro sport to throw a game for a few dollars before I would expect the highest paid player to do so.
Definitely.
However, if some players are getting some money from some people all the time, it's hard to determine if it is legitimate or for nefarious purposes.
If you have a hard and fast rule ("No money! No gifts! No nothing!"), then if ANY is found the change hands, you can immediately determine it is illegal and apply the penalty.
posted by grum@work at 03:29 PM on September 08, 2010
In case you're really not sure, shoplifting is wrong.
posted by Hugh Janus at 06:51 PM on September 08, 2010
Shoplifting is wrong? What if it's the pooty?
posted by MW12 at 07:46 PM on September 08, 2010
Morrissey is always getting me into trouble. It was his idea.
maybe the award needs to be given to a athlete who plays in a small Division 1 school
posted by yerfatma at 07:35 AM on September 09, 2010
Shoplifting is wrong? What if it's the pooty?
You can't shoplift the pooty.
posted by BornIcon at 07:50 AM on September 09, 2010
I would love to see the Heisman committee give the award, for a couple years at least, to a excellent athlete/student/citizen from a smaller Division 1 or 1-AA college. The biggest of the big stars from the Floridas, USCs, etc. are all probably being compensated in some way, shape, or form, so give the Heisman to a athlete who still plays "college" football.
posted by dyams at 09:52 AM on September 09, 2010
Fatty, notice how all three players on that cover are wearing black jerseys? It's another damn conspiracy, I tell you!
posted by billsaysthis at 01:11 PM on September 09, 2010
Yeah, whatever happened to that Jackson character, anyhow? May have been a pretty good athlete, but I don't think he's any Dudek.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:49 PM on September 09, 2010
Take the trophy away from him. What exactly does it mean at this point? He broke rules, but those rules in no way take away from how he performed on the field.