.vresize.36.36.medium.0.png){kind=small}
.vresize.36.36.medium.0.png){kind=small}
Heisman trustee-types, what about me?
I’m a Heisman voter, so shouldn’t I get a say in the matter? Before you make a decision on whether or not to take away an award that has already been handed out — and there appears to be some disagreement about whether or not you've already done this with Heisman Trophy Trust Executive Director Rob Whalen rebutting an online report earlier Tuesday — shouldn’t you allow us voters to do a revote and leave Bush eligible?
At the time, I voted Bush first and Vince Young second, but I wrote several pieces suggesting the Heisman should be handed out after the bowl games so it goes to the right guy. Of course, after the scintillating performance to carry Texas for the national title, I would’ve voted for Young and he would’ve won in a walk, but that wasn’t the criteria at the time, and if we’re all suddenly these sticklers to uphold the rules and the laws, then Reggie Bush was, is, and always will be the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner.
So, again, what’s the point? If the Heisman Trust decides to strip Bush of his hardware, will it be doing so only to send a message to future players? Yeah, right, like some 19-year-old with no money and just enough of a sense of the hypocrisy surrounding his circumstances is going to pass up thousands of dollars and a sweet ride on the off chance that he might win the Heisman.
Bush wouldn’t be getting punished. So he won't have a trophy … whoop-dee-do. He knows he was the best player in college football during the 2005 regular season, everyone who voted for him knows that and history will always remember him for being the Heisman winner. It shouldn’t just be taken away on a whim of pretentious morality.
Now, if the trust decides not to award the Heisman for that year, the powers that be will be doing even more to highlight what he accomplished. Just like using f***, or saying “the N-word,” or H-E-double hockey sticks (yes, I’m going grandma on you), only makes things worse by calling attention to the offensive word you’re trying to tiptoe around. Putting an asterisk or leaving a blank next to 2005 will only make people remember Bush that much more.
And no, this isn’t like putting an asterisk next to Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGwire, or Lance Armstrong. If Bush had taken performance enhancing drugs or compromised the play on the field, then this would be a different story. Bush and USC were punished for violating a made-up NCAA rule, and there’s no reasonable or rational argument that can be made that what happened off the field won him the Heisman.
So what now, Heisman Trust? If you’re going to make a call like this, then can we also just assume that anyone from the old Southwest Conference, SEC, or really, at least half the former winners should probably lose the Heisman, too? Go down that list of past Heisman winners and you tell us who you’re 100 percent sure was clean as a whistle. Should we take away Eric Crouch’s Heisman for the ham sandwich incident? How about Matt Leinart’s award for the minor problems stemming from the apartment his dad set him up with? Bush taking money from a marketing company is evil, but O.J. is cool with you? Exactly where is your line drawn?
Heisman Trust, this is a chance to take a stand and be above the ridiculousness. Don't blow it.
