OT: Heisman Trust: "No 2005 winner." How stupid.

or on any way cheat on the field, nor did SC

Ummm, yeah he did and yes they did.  That's kind of the point.

So how do you punish Bush for breaking the rules? And not just little tiny rules, but one of the NCAA's most important rules.

And how do you punish the university for creating an environment where those rules could be broken, so heinously, and go unnoticed?

Part of the requirements to be eligible for the Heisman is that the player meets NCAA compliance rules.  Reggie Bush failed to do so.  Therefore he should not have won the award in the first place.

The rules are the rules.  You play by the rules or pay the consequences.  Indeed, it is unfortunate that other members of USC's team were impacted.  

Please provide an alternative since you seem offended by the punishment.

It is right to keep the award vacant for that year as a constant reminder of what happened.  If VY got it, there would only be an asterisk as to why.  With no name on that year, it's much more glaringly obvious that something wrong happened.  It's a warning to future players. 

It's a matter of principle. 

"Reggie Bush won the Heisman fair and square on the field."

But the point is he shouldn't have been on the field.

Chris Webber doesn't exist according to Michigan.  This is the kind of penalties that should exist to deter this behavior.  If only the NCAA would finally crack down on Calipari the world would be better off.

Well he was an ineligible player and technically a professional athlete.  If Adrian Peterson came back and played this year for Oklahoma, do you think he would deserve to win the Heisman?

If OSU paid 85 of the best players at every position to come and play for them, and they beat us that year 100-7, would you count that as a loss in our series against them? This is the same issue. Reggie Bush may have been the best player in college football that year, but he was technically a professional. Because of that fact, he was ineligible for the Heisman. I think they handled this well. Don't give it to someone else who didn't win the vote, but take it away from the guy that cheated.

The NCAA had nothing to do with this.  The only organization that is a factor here is the Heisman Trust.  By their rules, the player must be eligible to be awarded the Heisman.  Bush was ruled ineligible. He handed it back to save face.  It wasn't stripped from him, though it probably would have been.

The fact that he forfeited the trophy makes pretty much every argument moot, except what to do with it now.  I think they made the right choice in that regard.  Having a re-vote or simply awarding it to Young would be unfair.

Bush cheated.

It was willful and against the rules and that alone makes him ineligible for the trophy.    

Here are the first few lines of the mission statement:

"The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity.  Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverence, and hard work.  The Heisman Trophy Trust ensures the continuation and integrity of this award."

Bush has been found not only ineligible for that year, but utterly lacking in integrity.  Therefore, he did NOT "earn the award on the field," as many contend.

The integrity issue is why I think Denard has such a great chance to win the award if he stays on his current path.  He is exemplifying all of the intangibles the committee is looking for.  This entire episode has probably helped Denard's case.  If it came to a choice between TP and Denard, voters may look at Denard as a much "safer" choice. 

When the Trust looks a player who has made many "me me me" public statements, not to mention "everybody murders,"  and has basically held both his coach and his offense hostage over a promose to further his NFL prospects, and that player is compared to a player who only talks about the team, choosing to deflect all attention to the team, the coaches, or God, the "intangibles" of player B may carry a lot more weight in the decision process.

Now that the "genie is out of the bottle," I feel pretty safe in saying that the Trust is going to go to much greater lengths to make sure candidates for its award are "squeaky clean."  If there is any quesiton as to a player's character, or where he got his [insert car, housing, or other various perks here], someone else will get the vote. 

I have to be honest, no one cares about the Heisman, except the school and fans of the player that wins it (and the fans/school of the player that comes in second, see. Manning, Peyton).

It doesn't always go to the best player: Ingram over Suh... The list of players who never do much more is even more striking: Eric Crouch, Jason White, Rashaan Salaam, etc.

I could care less if Bush kept it or not.

The post is awful (mostly because I hate USC), but it is somewhat concerning that an alleged double murderer still has the trophy and Reggie doesn't...

Personally, I rather they just place an asterisk next to his win and let it be.  It happened, and while he certainly should be punished for breaking the rules, you might as well go back through history and make sure all other postseason award winners are clean.  I understand why the committee acted the way they did and I agree to an extent, but selectively changing history all with the goal of maintaining the integrity of the award is foolish - either accept history as-is and make the proper notations, or revise the past completely.  The piecemeal approach of removing wins from some teams and awards from certain players just seems silly to me.

Also, the Heisman has lost some luster irrespective of what Bush did, as it has gone from a real attempt to highlight the best player in the country  into a media-based award handed out to the biggest name, the biggest records, and/or the top guy on a top team.  I mean, Gina Torreta and Andre Ware won in consecutive years.