2005 Heisman Debate

[Big Sexy]

As most of you know Reggie Bush may get his 2005 Heisman Trophy taken away because he received illegal benefits so therefore is ruled ineligible. Mack Brown believes that if Bush is stripped of the trophy that it should be awarded to Vince Young either through a re-vote or just because Young finished second on the initial ballot.

I disagree with this. If Bush gets stripped of the trophy that's one thing but I don't think someone else should get. Bush was awarded the trophy because he was the best player that season. If they gave it to Young now it would seem like a tainted win because according to the 2005 voters he was not the best player. Although Bush SHOULD have been ineligible, he still played during the season and was the best player in the country. I would not want to be awarded a trophy saying I'm the best at something when it's already been shown that I'm not.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

If I'm Vince Young, I don't want it. It's tainted since Bush beat him in 2005. As to whether or not it should be awarded to Young at all, I say no. Did Final Four banners get awarded to the teams that the Fab 5 beat in March Madness, it's the same thing here. It was stripped from Bush, but shouldn't be awarded to the first loser.

 

[Stormtrooper]

First of all, I do not see any reason why Reggie Bush should be stripped of the award. He broke rules, but nothing that enhanced his performance on the field. To me, taking away the award would be like taking away the 1998 NL MVP award from Sammy Sosa because we found out later that he did steroids. There has to be some sort of Statute of Limitations on this type of stuff. If you can't prove it in a year, let it go, there is no reason for trying to change a 5 year old award. What if we find out that Steve Spurrier (who won the Heisman in 1966) received illegal benefits? Do we award it to whoever was 2nd in the 1966 Heisman race? No, we ignore it and move on.

If Bush's Heisman is vacated, then they should NOT award it to anyone. Vince Young finished 2nd, but who's to say that if Bush wasn't on the ballot, someone else other then VY would have taken a lot of the Bush votes? You can't just award the 2nd place guy the trophy, so either vacate it or let Bush have it.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who finds the fact that we're talking about a Bush vote humorous. Maybe they should re-count the votes. Maybe a couple of the ballots were too confusing for the old voters...

 

[Megatron]

To make this thread interesting I'll play devils advocate.

First of all, I'd like to point out I agree with ST that Reggie wasn't taking any PED's to influence his stuff on teh field, so I'm a little confused as to why they're stripping him of it. But either way, let's down to the real question.

Yes, if Reggie is stripped of the Heisman, it should go to Vince. The Heisman is probably the most famous award in any American Sport that's awarded annually. Greats have held the award. Roger Staubach, Tebow, Sanders, Griffin, Cambell, etc. To go a year without a winner would be an abberation. It's not fair to Young, Leinart, or whoever else was in the voting to not have a winner there.

I believe it was a US Gymnastics team that received their bronze medals a few weeks ago, despite competing in the Olympics over 8 years ago. An Asian team was disqualified and the US got their medals, and I'm pretty sure they're happy with it, even if it wasn't presented to national television and was well after they were done competing. This is a similar situation. You're gonna tell me that Young wouldn't accept the award? Please. Sure, it may not be as meaningful since it's 5 years too late, but it's THE Heisman Trophy. I'm sure he would happily accept the award.

If Bush is stripped, give it to Young. Leaving it vacant would just be a slap in the face to those guys who were eligible that year. Someone should get it.

 

[klunderbunker]

I wouldn't give it to Young. I would put the trophy up at an auction and have the proceeds go to the USC scholarship fund. The stupidity of the NCAA stripping USC of scholarships because of this fiasco is another debate for a different time but whatever.

As for the whole thing of should it go to Young, no it shouldn't. Bush may have received improper benefits or whatever, but this didn't change his athletic ability. He was the best player in the country back in 2005 and therefore should have received the Heisman. The whole thing is a mess and another case of the flaw in college sports being shown. Just vacate it and let it die.

 

[gd]

It shouldn't go to Vince Young or anyone else. At this point, it wouldn't mean anything. I belive Vince has even said that if they offer it to him that he wouldn't accept it. If he doesn't even want it, it shouldn't be a debate.

All of the taking away awards, records, wins, etc is just stupid though. All of the stuff happened on the field. We remembered it, everyone lived it. Unless you're going to erase everyone's memories, it's all rather useless.

 

[People's Champ]

Young shouldn't get it, he finished so far behind Bush that season it wasn't even funny. Besides, while he shouldn't have been allowed to play, the fact is it didn't affect his play on the field. He was obviously the best that season. If they are going to be deciding anything, it should only be whether they are going to strip Bush of the award, and not go anywhere near deciding whether or not to give it to Young.