Posted on 09/13/2010 9:50:25 AM PDT by Shout Bits
Apart from helping New Orleans win the Super Bowl last year and dating Kim Kardashian, Reggie Bush is most famous in that he is about to lose his Heisman Trophy. The Heisman Trophy is awarded to the best college football player each year, and Bush won his back in 2005 when working for USC’s football program. Most crimes, short of murder, are not punishable five years after the alleged transgression, so Bush must have done something horrible to now lose his Heisman. His crime was to accept unapproved compensation during his time as a USC football player – horrible. . .
More like money to buy food and shoes, or money to buy Maseratis and condos in Florida?
It’s not about how horrible the crime he committed was, it wasn’t major, it’s the fact that what he did jeopardized his eligibility. Comparing his situation with that of OJ Simpson is idiotic. OJ’s crime was committed over a quarter century after his college career ended. This is about eligibility, not the seriousness of the offense.
His family was guilty of taking gifts just as many other players at USC, and quite likely other colleges were. It was determined to be pervasive enough there to nearly merit the death penalty from the NCAA. How many of the other schools will they now subject to the same scrutiny? It should be all or none, not a select few.
I don’t usually reply to comments, but you really miss the point, or you didn’t read the whole post.
In any event, OJ was prosecuted within a few weeks of his crime.
Most blog pimps don't.
Nonsense...there is an eligibility component to the Heisman...you have to be eligible to participate in NCAA football games in order to be eligible to win the award. Bush was..because of infractions discovered after the fact...found to be ineligible. The NCAA has stripped teams of wins and even championships in the past when it became apparent that allowed athletes who weren’t eligible to participate to do so any way.
The DAC is well within its rights to do the same if they feel Bush was not eligible to win the award when he received it. The degree of the offense or the time it took to come to light are meaningless....
And OJ's crime had nothing to do with his performance as either a college or NFL running back. If OJ committed murder (which I think he probably did) it did not change the fact that he had a Heisman Trophy career in college and a record-setting, Hall-of-Fame football career.
1. FReepers come to FR to read articles and comment on them. If you are going to post your blog here and think it is worthy of discussion, you actually should reply to the comments here. It is kind of rude to ignore the comments that people post in response to your blog.
2. When you say "or you didn't read the whole post" do you really mean "or you didn't click over to my blog and read the rest of the article"? The reason that I ask this is because the "whole post" didn't really make much of a point other than imply that the revocation of Bush's Heisman is some grave miscarriage of justice after the "statute of limitations" should have expired.
Statute of limitations is irrelevant to this case. This isn’t a criminal case. Also, you say 5 years. Well, he was awarded his Heisman 4 years and 9 months ago, so it’s still within the limitations if it were relevant.
You’re right, other schools do it too, but there was so much evidence against USC it couldn’t be ignored. Trust me, the NCAA tried to ignore it for years, but eventually they were forced to make an example of them. Of course, they waited until after the program took a slight dip, much like they did with Miami 15 years ago.
Exactly. I’ve noticed that it tends to be lib media types making the comparison.
I like Reggie he seems like a good Christian man.
This isn’t about seriousness of the crime. The real bottom line is that OJ murdering 2 people did nothing to affect his eligibility and Reggie Bush taking money while still a collegiate athlete did. Numerous schools have had NCAA Tournament and Final Four appearances vacated by the NCAA for players being found to have accepted money, thus violating their eligibility. Also, many schools have probably had players convicted of very serious crimes, but they don’t lose their championships for that.
What gives you that impression? Also, who cares? This guy should not have been eligible to play in 2005 and that is the issue.
The ACTUAL bottom line is that the Heisman award is about performance as a college football athlete and nothing else. If your participation as a college football athlete was marred by some form of eligibility cheating on a scale too big to be ignored or swept under the rug, then you lose your award.
If you engage in criminal activity after you win a Heisman and that criminal activity had nothing to do with your eligibility or performance as a college athlete that won you the award, then you keep the award.
One thing has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the other. THAT is the bottom line.
Btw, Ever notice how the big schools play the small schools to pad their stats? Yeah we beat Little Sisters of the Poor 52-0.
For it to be considered a sport, an uninterested observer should be the one making the schedule NOT the athletic director of the school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.