Not Cardinals related news, but I want to see how everyone here feels about Reggie Bush forfeiting his Heisman Trophy.
He was reccently declared academically ineligible to play because of some gifts that he received while he was at USC, and USC also gave back their copy of Reggie's Heisman Trophy. USC also had to vacate some of their wins during his last two years at the school, and they were banned from playing in a Bowl Game for a couple of years.
So, what do you think? Should he have been allowed to keep his Heisman Trophy?
Comments
I thought he should have had it taken away.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
But Why?
Give some explanation behind your thoughts. I agree with the posts below, the Heisman is all about performance. Had Reggie paid for his parent’s house like he told the agent he would, we wouldn’t have heard anything about this. College athletes are paid athletes, if you think otherwise then you are just naive. I think the sanctions against USC harm the Freshmen/Sophomores like Barkley, Kenard, and Baxter that could go to the NFL before they are eligible for another bowl game. The sanctions are punishing the wrong people.
by cardinalbrown on Sep 14, 2010 6:05 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because he was inneligable to play
And people who were ineligible to play can’t receive the Heisman from what I’ve read.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
I do agree that all of this is stupid
But, look at that receiver for Georgia (A.J. Green I think). He can’t play because he sold his jersey to some agent, and what happened with Dez Bryant last year.
What Reggie did was no worse than the things they did, he just wasn’t declared ineligible until now.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
Touchee sir
You are right about Green and Bush’s wrongs being equal. Green is only suspended for 4 games, so he could actually win the Heisman if he goes on to a monster of a year (highly unlikely). Dez Bryant was wronged. I think the NCAA made an example of him to show they don’t like being lied to.
by cardinalbrown on Sep 15, 2010 9:26 PM MDT up reply actions
It's more complicated than that.
The NCAA ruled USC juniors and seniors could transfer without sitting out a year, but because sophomores (Kenard/Barkley) and redshirt freshmen (Baxter) could play in a bowl game if they stayed to graduate, then they would have to sit out if they transferred. Unfair situation to those kids. Nonetheless, I bet Kenard is wishing he would have stayed home and gone to ASU. Having Kenard and Burfcit playing together for 3 years would have been amazing to watch!
by cardinalbrown on Sep 15, 2010 9:20 PM MDT up reply actions
Correct
People will refer to him as former Heisman winner or something to that effect. What does that really mean? It means they recognize that he was a Heisman-level player, and they can’t take that away from him. Now I’m indifferent about the award itself. I’m just commenting on how it’s silly to think that his skill level went down because he gave back the award or something.
I’m 100% against the sanctions. There’s not even a reason why that should happen. They really want USC to resent Reggie forever, thus not only taking away his Heisman but injecting hate into his name as well. What a dirty thing to do.
by KholdStare88 on Sep 15, 2010 3:06 AM MDT up reply actions
I think it's stupid.
None of what happened at USC had anything to do with what Reggie Bush personally did on the field. Steroids should justify stripping away a player’s Heisman because that gives a player an unfair advantage on the field. Giving gifts should justify stripping away a school’s copy of a Heisman because it gives the school an unfair advantage in fielding a team. But accepting gifts didn’t give Reggie Bush any on-field advantage.
The Heisman Trophy should be based on performance
And nothing else. Reggie Bush won that trophy because he played well. Once a Heisman Trophy is given, unless they are proven to having taken performance-enhancing drugs or something that unfairly boosts their ability to play on the field, then it should never be taken away, because the Heisman Trophy is about performance, and each winner receives it because they performed well.
As for all of those punishments on USC, that’s also partly unfair. Yes, I think they should be punished a little for what they did, but it’s not fair on the students who are currently attending the college. They had nothing to do with what USC did when Reggie Bush was in college. Most of them were probably in High School when it happened. This hurts them more than anyone. Do the USC punishments hurt Reggie Bush? No. Does it hurt the officials in USC who carried out the actions? No, not really. It affects the students who won’t receive those scholarships and who won’t have a chance to win a college championship for themselves for another two years.
I agree
I think this is ridiculous
"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that." - Bill Shankly
by Jesse Reynolds on Sep 14, 2010 5:19 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
Good points, but...
Can you think of any way to meaningfully punish USC that wouldn’t hurt the players in some way?
Instead of punishing the whole school
They could punish the individuals who carried out the actions.
Yeah but if they shut them down it would send a scare throughout other programs too.
Might help clean up the graft a little.
Believe me
I’m sure punishing those officials would scare every college out of their wits. Some of those college officials are real corrupt, and they’d realize that they better fix their acts if they want to keep earning the money they do.
Having spent two months working there this summer
My impression of the USC football program is of an arrogant group of people who care about absolutely nothing but a winning program at USC no matter what cost, not the welfare of the players who bring so much success to the university. How else could you explain the logic of removing bush’s memorabila totally from the museum and leaving OJ simpson’s? Simpson is a convicted armed robber and suspected murderer.. But hey, he didnt violate any NCAA rules or bring any sanctions on to the precious program! Bush has been turned into a scapegoat here and both usc and he have paid a heavy price for the whole affair. However, even though usc MUST have known what was going on and therefore been complicit in the whole affair they look like the victim, while bush is cast as a villain. People at the program should remember the joy that bush brought them, however tainted, before they just pretend he didnt exist.
by Irishcardinal on Sep 15, 2010 3:56 AM MDT via mobile reply actions
Punish who is really responsible.
The people at the school who looked the other way and, more importantly, the agents or others who are providing the benefit. Fine them and make them unable to represent any professional athletes. (I know that’s likely impossible, but it’d send a message.) They are a lot more responsible than a kid who is told everybody does it (which is probably pretty close to true) and they won’t catch him (they didn’t catch him, so that’s true too).
Makes Sense
But how do you punish a school? Sanctions mean you’re punishing the innocent players of the school.
by KholdStare88 on Sep 15, 2010 11:04 AM MDT up reply actions





















