The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Sources are reporting that Reggie Bush will have his Heisman win stripped from him. They plan to leave that year vacant. I'm glad they are stripping him, but I'm mixed on no one holding the trophy now. Do you think second place should get the honor or do you agree with leaving it vacant?

i think it's irrelevant .. college awards are meaningless compared to your shiny superbowl ring

That seems like a really limited view... The Heisman is worth quite a bit, unless all you're doing is projecting NFL futures.

Glad to see Reggie get stripped of it though. Despite my Pac-10 homerism, I just want to see all hints of this sort of behavior out of the college football.

This sounds like the position of a person who doesn't care much for college football.

I think its BS.  He won the Heisman, so be it.  What happens off the field or behind the scenes doesn't make him a better player.  If he was caught 'roiding up, then maybe I'd agree, but this is not a good reason to revise history after the fact.

This is the NCAA saving face, showing that they won't put up with this stuff.  What happened, happened.

I don't agree with your analogy.  Heisman:BCS National Champion::league MVP:Superbowl.

I will take a national championship over a Heisman or a ring over the mvp.  

But he has since been ruled an ineligible player. What justification do you have for awarding a trophy to an ineligible player?

Chris Fowler is reporting that he has spoken with the Heisman trust and that the reports are false. They have not made any such decision.

I agree with Brian.

You can't "UNDO" things that happened on the field.

I disagree. USC has already been stripped of its National Championship. You may feel you can't take it back, but the fact is that it has already happened. Bush was ineligible to play, therefore he is ineligible to earn any awards as a player. I have yet to hear any compelling reasons why an ineligible player should earn a reward.

He was NOT ineligible to play WHEN he was playing.  You can't rewind 5 years and say "oh yeah, all this stuff didn't happen because WE missed stuff and didn't catch people"

That's not how it goes.  It DID happen, he WAS eligible AT THE TIME, and nothing should be changed that happened many years ago.  Never.

No, he was thought to be eligible, but he really wasn't.

USC knowingly put a player on the field that they knew was accepting money (if you don't think they knew just go back and read up on the dramatic lifestyle changes both Reggie and his family went through). I feel you can't ignore or reward cheating. That does nothing to help correct future actions.

So, if Reggie Bush had gone in drag his entire time at USC, competed in women's sports, won every possible title, including "top female athlete of the year"...and then he got caught five years after he left USC when someone finally noticed his adam's apple, does that mean he actually WAS a female during his college years?

He cheated, he got caught... Take the awards away from him that he won while cheating.

The question is, how is accepting money cheating?  It doesn't affect his performance on the field.  I agree with Brian.  If he was taking Performance Enhancing Drugs, that would be one thing.  But accepting money is something he did off the field that didn't affect his performance on it. 

Every college pays off its athletes.  USC was just stupid enough to get caught. Now they have to pay the penalty.

Because it's against the rules?

I see a difference between what Bush someone taking steroids.  What Bush did, did not help him win any games.  It did not give him an unfair advantage.

In fact, I see what Bush did to be analogues to what Pete Rose did.  Both broke the rules, but neither gained an advantage for themselves or their team.

But both brought disgrace and needless distraction to the game they played.

I therefore OPPOSE: USC forfeiting any championships, Bush returning the Heisman, the Red forfeiting  any world series, or Rose returning his Gold Glove Award, Silver Slugger Award, NL MVP, World Series MVP, NL Rookie of the Year, Hutch Award, Lou Gehrig Memorial Award or Roberto Clemente Award.  

I do, however, support the idea that the disgrace they brought upon themselves and others ought be factored in when considering them for the baseball hall of fame, college football hall of fame or NFL hall of fame.  

So, it would be OK for one organization's memorial to sports fame (the hall of fame) to count his cheating against him...but it's not OK for another organization's memorial to sports fame (the heisman trophy) to count his cheating against him.

Hmmmm...

Your stance is very confusing. At first you disagree, then you agree. Yes they all have to pay the penalty. In my eyes that penalty is losing the Heisman he was awarded.

Timeline.....lets not rewrite history.  He won the Heisman, Pete Rose won the golden glove award.  Happened. Its over.  Done. Period. Move on.  But for future awards consider the totality of what they did up until the voting process.  I think Ray Lewis's getting away with murder ought keep him out of the HOF.  I don't feel OJ getting away with two should get him removed.  I did not agree with revoting on the DROY.

CNN is reporting that they will indeed ask for the Heisman back.

No worries...we just have different opinions on this issue. You believe in a "what's done is done" policy, regardless of whether what was done is right or not.

YES!

The difference is effect.  Accepting money doesn't make you play better.  Buying his mom a house doesn't put points on the board.  Yes, its against the rules, but I wouldn't call it "cheating."  Its not like USC won more games because Reggie's sister was rolling in a Caddy as opposed to a Tercel.

Surely we can all agree on that?

That is one difference.  What Bush and Rose did while wrong did not aid them in the game.

However, I have yet to hear the chants for Sammy Sosa to give back his Silver Slugger Awards even though his corked bats most definitely aided him in winning those awards. 

(not that I agree with giving back award but this would be a much better case for that)

Lots of people are reporting it, but it is apparently a false report (at this stage). Fowler said he spoke directly to one of the people on the committee and the denied that there is anything close to a decision at this point.

The only stupid policy is penalizing the players that had nothing to do with the scandal. The NCAA needs to lay down massive fines and penalize tv coverage of non bowl games for the team involved. It would hurt the school, but not the students who did nothing wrong, especially when the investigation takes years to finish.
If they catch a school with questionable players on the field, such as what is going on with the agent sponsored trips, you can actually hammer both the schools and players involved.

Also it is cheating to take money. The bigger, richer schools have had boosters buying top tier talent to stock their shelves for decades, and it has been an unfair advantage over smaller schools that have less booster activity or fight to keep their programs clean.

What about all the other NCAA rules and regulations that are broken by pretty much ALL teams? My problem with all this is the hypocrisy.

An obvious example is the 8-hours-a-week of sports that college athletes are limited to in the "off season". That includes any and all conditioning, time spent watching game tape, technical skills, and so on.

Sometimes you have to break the rules in order to change them.  But still, how is it cheating?  He wasn't taking steroids, wasn't stealing game film from other schools, how could him taking money give him an unfair advantage over the guys he went against on the field?   It couldn't and didn't.   He won his Heisman, let him keep it. 

He gave his team an unfair advantage. Reggie Bush was Reggie Bush no matter what. Take the money away is he Reggie Bush at USC anymore? Does he go somewhere else? If so, does it affect his Heisman chances? The Butterfly Effect is in full play. You can't take the money out of the equation and say everything else remains the same.

I agree fully. Does USC win the NC without him? Is he there without the cash? Perhaps he could have still won the Heisman without being at USC, but we will never know because he took the money to go there.

And if the Dolphin's don't tamper with the Colts head coach in 1969, then do they win the superbowl in '72?  At some point the butterfly effect is just bs. 

What Bush did was a violation of the rules.  No question.  But it doesn't change the fact he did in fact run the yards that won him the award. 

I say fine USC heavily.  And maybe even suspended Bush from some games from the NFL.  But the award was won.  And certainly don't punish the current kids at USC for something they had no part of.   

Well until the rule changes, then I'm of the opinion that breaking them is cheating.

There is an NFL rule regarding the color of ones chin strap.  (Ochocinco has been fined TWICE for breaking this rule)
Is this rule breaking cheating?

My point is not all rule breaking gives you an actual on field advantage.   

You are talking about chin strap color vs buying off a player to go to a certain school.  Apples and oranges.  He accepted money.  He knew it was against the rules.  He got caught and now he has to pay.

I doubt they do so using that example really isn't a good one. You can think the Butterfly Effect might be BS but it doesn't change the fact that when variables change so do outcomes. I don't think saying it is out of the question to say things could have happened very differently in Southern California had Bush not been taking money.

And things may have turned out differently in Miami and in Baltimore if the Dolphins didn't tamper.  Bush still ran for those yards. 

Let's try to use some common sense here.

Saying that "cheating is cheating" means that if the third string QB (that never stepped on the field) spent more than 8 total hours in any single week studying his playbook, oops, sorry Alabama, you have to forfeit your National Title because Rules Are Rules.

Attempting to divorce the rule broken from its impact on the field is absurd.  You can make butterfly-effect arguments for literally any broken rule: player A substituted a powderpuff class in homeopathy for one of his required natural science courses in high school, which then gave him more time to practice football, which made him a better practice competitor by the time he got to college, which pushed Tim Tebow to compete harder to beat him in practice, which led to Tebow winning the Heisman and QBing Florida to a pair of titles.

If you want to start stripping away Heismans after the fact, Reggie Bush should be nowhere near the front of the list.

It is 20 hours during season and 8 hours in offseason and that is only for "required" and/or "supervised" activities, so studying the playbook is not a violation. Accepting money on the other hand is.

Yes.  I think Cincinnatti should have to give up their SB ring....uh well....if they had won one. :)

Definition of cheating: to violate rules or regulations. 

So yes Ochocinco is in fact cheating.  There are different penalties for cheating.  Ochocinco was fined, it doesn't cost them any games.  Bush's cheating results in ineligibility.

Sure there are different levels of cheating, but yes they are all cheating.  I'm not a fan of Ochocinco breaking the rules, but if he's okay with the consequences that's his business.

Bush has said he is giving it back.

The tropy or the money he took?  >:D

Not the money. That is how the story broke. The "agent" wanted to get his money back so he spilled the beans when Bush denied him.

Accepting money is cheating because he then becomes a "paid professional athelte" on the field competiting against "student-athletes"

There is a HUGE difference.


When Bush scored vs SF last night he should have struck the Heisman pose in the endzone!!!

I'm glad that punk ass cheater got what was coming to him.  No Heisman and a broken leg in the same week...I'll drink to that.