BillyShears

September 14th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^

He didn't actually give a reason for forfeiting it except to say

 

  Each individual carries the legacy of the award and each one is entrusted with its good name

 

Yet I don't think the Heisman trophy suffered as a result of O.J. Simpson's later transgressions.

Joined: 05/27/2009

MGoPoints: 1979

neoavatara

September 14th, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^

...that it was communicated to him he was going to lose it one way or another...this simply is the cleanest way to get it over with.

Since he 'forfeited' the trophy...does it go to Vince Young, like the runner up of a beauty pageant?

Joined: 08/01/2009

MGoPoints: 1726

TheOracle6

September 14th, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^

I'm glad Bush did this. It shows that he's a better person then I had originally thought.  It also shows that he knows what he did at USC was wrong and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't the only one that received a cool 500,000.

Joined: 09/02/2010

MGoPoints: 1636

Twisted Martini

September 14th, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^

"Fuck that...I was the best player that year full stop.  And fuck Vince Young, we would have beaten him if Lendale coulda dragged his fat ass out there for one yard.  Can't unring a bell, and I ain't giving this bitch back.  Now where's Kim?"

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 1197

bronxblue

September 14th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^

This just seems dumb to me - Bush had a dominant season and was recognized for it.  I know he is doing this for PR, but I'm also fairly certain that he is being pressured to do so by the DAC.  To think that nobody else that season received benefits or violated other NCAA sanctions is myopic, and I'm sure if you went through the long lines of major award winners you would find individuals who should also forfeit those awards for cheating.  To try to erase the past simply by turning over an award is an attempt to cheapen history instead of just acknowledging that it happened and the attendant circumstances.

I feel the same way about guys like Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire - they might have cheated, but put just an asterisk next to their accomplishments and move on.  They still put up those stats and set those records, and it is disingenuous to retroactively expunge those accomplishments just to maintain the veneer of "wholesomeness." 

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171578

Enjoy Life

September 14th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^

Hmm, next time you get caught by the police for speeding, just try telling them that "a lot of other people do it".

Doesn't matter if everyone else is doing it, if you get caught, you get the punishment.

If he gets to keep the Heisman, then everyone except the guy that commited the "crime" is punished (e.g. the entire USC team, fans, etc.).

Bush should send a check for about $5 million to USC to start his mea culpa (are you listening CWebb?)

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 2658

bronxblue

September 14th, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^

My point wasn't that other people probably broke the rules; my issue is with the notion that Bush should return the Heisman because his transgressions need to be "expunged" from the history books, that him winning the Heisman on the field somehow tarnishes the legacy of the award because he should have been ineligible.  History exists to remember the game as it was for that year, warts and all.  Recognize that Bush should not have been out there, that USC broke the rules, and move on.  Trying to erase that team and its accomplishments seems foolish to me.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171578

stankoniaks

September 14th, 2010 at 5:35 PM ^

I actually see a distinction between Bush and McGwire and Bonds, which is why I don't think he should have to forfeit the Heisman.  Those other two cheated on the field.  Bush didn't do anything on the field to gain a competitive advantage.  Yes, I know he should not have been eligible and thus played, but I think it's a little naive to assume that none of the other Heisman winners ever took money or ever took steroids or HGH.  I think I'd have a bigger problem if he took performance enhancing drugs.

Joined: 02/04/2009

MGoPoints: 1766

GoBlueInNYC

September 14th, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^

Part of the issue, though, is that he is not an eligible Heisman candidate, so he can't be a Heisman winner.  Heisman candidates need to be eligible NCAA athletes to even qualify for the award, he has been found, after the fact, to not have been eligible.  So, again after the fact, he doesn't qualify to win the award.  

Joined: 03/23/2010

MGoPoints: 8770

stankoniaks

September 14th, 2010 at 8:43 PM ^

I understand and agree with everything you're saying. The thing with revisionist history is that no matter how you rewrite it, you can't change what we remember. Technically USC's national championship in 2004 and all it's wins in 2005 didn't happen. But you ask everyone and they'll say USC won the NC in 04 and USC beat ND via the "Bush push" in 2005. You can take the Heisman away from Bush, and even give it to Young, but everyone will remember Bush hoisting it five hears ago.

Joined: 02/04/2009

MGoPoints: 1766

BlueVoix

September 14th, 2010 at 5:34 PM ^

Man, if you had told me in 2005 that Reggie Bush was going to lose his Heisman and only put up 25 yards in the Super Bowl but still have team win the game, I would have said...

OH MY GOD SOMEONE TELL JASON FORCIER NOT TO TRANSFER AND UNSCHEDULE APPALACHIAN STATE.

Joined: 06/25/2009

MGoPoints: 5576