One of the worst aspects of shipping something is finding a box that fits. And so I can empathize with Reggie Bush as he struggles to return the Heisman Trophy he won less than five years ago. Fed Ex, UPS or regular mail? How much insurance? The process is much tougher than the UCLA defenses he faced in the day. If he is really in a bind Bush can call Southern Cal and ask them how they shipped back their copy of the trophy, which they did back in July.
Should he have given it back? He really did not have much of a choice once the Heisman Trust--and no that is not the name of a failed savings and loan--announced that the award is meant only for eligible players. So once the NCAA declared Bush ineligible retroactively for what he and his family accepted from sports marketers, he was ineligible to win the award that he already had won. It is dumb, of course, but a rule is a rule.
You see the thing about the Heisman is that people in charge of maintaining its standing as the premier individual trophy in all of American sports feel that it is much more than a most outstanding player award. It is meant to honor the great player who best represents the sport. Bush is an interesting test of this in that he not only was a brilliant football player but an outstanding example of what is good about athletics--on the field at least. He worked hard and was the true leader of that record-setting offense (based on the pro careers of Leinart, White and Jarrett, Bush deserves two Heismans). Of course, he felt that his talents deserved compensation. That he accepted so much and then continued to deny responsibility despite overwhelming evidence against him was as much of a problem in the end for Bush as the technicality of him being an ineligible player the year he won the award. So while he was the best player that season--and that should not be questioned even if the runner-up easily won the MOP award in their bowl match-up--he cannot keep the trophy. It is rather cut and dry.
Bush also suffers from being the third winner of the award from USC to go on to embarrass the Trust. We all know about O.J., but even 1978 winner Charles White, the great tailback from the John Robinson days had to auction off his copy of his Heisman to pay off a tax debt.
Bush's failings coming on top of the problems of other winners should highlight the need to eliminate the sanctimonious element from the trophy. It is hard enough deciding who is the best individual in a team sport played by thousands without checking if a guy took cash or fit the profile of someone who will commit heinous crimes in the future. Most voters now just go with the best player approach. But a Trust is a Trust, especially when the trust is broken.
Bottom line is that he knowingly cheated, and as you said, continued to cover it up for a prolonged period of time. Some can make the case that a person's moral character should not affect his right to garner accolades, but this is more than that. We're not talking about a guy who did something immoral outside the confines of his sport (which in context could be more egregious to society depending on the violation) but a guy who KNOWINGLY BROKE THE RULES relevant to the activity for which he was awarded. If you knowingly break a rule or regulation in your sport, you should be subject to the disciplinary consequences that may follow. He had a choice to reject those illicit "donations" and elected not to do that. The fact that his football production did not directly benefit from the extra loot is immaterial. There are those who will argue (fans that I know well) that it's ridiculous to penalize a player for a sin that didn't help him, but he still committed a sin that's outlawed in his particular enviroment (amateur athletics). And I don't agree with turning the award into a "field-only" based honor. It's bad enough that most professional sports are littered with athletes who disgrace themselves and their sports by their behavior yet still reap the rewards bestowed upon them. After all, college athletics still should expect some integrity from its participants. Invariably, most of the winners will soon enough rack up enough awards, profit, and recognition despite any immoral and unethical conduct. If they're good enough to get to the next level, that is.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile Bush is still defending his actions, claim that his return of the trophy was not an admission of guilt. As for removing the "honor" aspect of the award, I believe that it is too difficult to know who has taken money or who has taken steroids or who treats people like crap. And what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for athletes' off-the-field behavior? Should we take away Paul Hornung's Heisman because he would sneak off to Chicago to drink and gamble? It is tough enough choosing the best individual among thousands without having to give the players character tests.
ReplyDeleteReggie Bush will always be the 2005 Heisman winner. His giving back the award doesn't change that. In fact, it changes nothing. So the question is what does it accomplish?
ReplyDeleteIs it to further punish him through embarrassment?
I would say he acted honorably by returning it.
Severe punishment already has been meted out against USC. This may surprise those who know my allegiance, but I think USC is more at fault here. The school was charged with protecting its student athletes and it failed miserably in this case. Sleazy agents are like jackals waiting to pounce on starving prey. It's up to the school to be the roaring lion at the gate scaring away the jackals. Instead, the USC turned a blind eye to the situation.
I do give Bush a little more latitude as
we can't deny that temptations of riches facing an athlete from poor backgrounds are hard to resist. He's not totally absolved. But carrying the legacy of the athlete who took down USC is probably harsh enough punishment.
And unlike Tim, I do think the fact that his violations did not give him or his team one bit of an advantage against opponents is relevant. Had USC won those games and championships because Bush was on steroids would be much more egregious.
Finally, what troubles me also is no one asked the Heisman voters. Perhaps they should have had another vote on what should happen to the trophy. It annoys me that some self-righteous committee threatens to strip him of it without any public comment.
Well I guess it's fair to say that we'll have to "agree to disagree," which I vehemently do on virtually every point of that rebuttal. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line? This was not about a player agreeing or accepting anything without prior first-hand knowledge of what constituted an undeniable breach of the rules. Why do we hold players by the hand after they commit unscrupulous actions? Instead of blaming the agent who everyone knows is a vulture and could give a crap about an impressionable player (and Bush and his family should have known that, too)a player should be able to recognize the difference between right and wrong. And let's not forget that a player of Reggie Bush's caliber IS HEARING THESE WARNINGS LONG BEFORE THE FINAL STAGES OF RECRUITING. Players of this generation are not insulated from the dangers of shady deals made by scurrulous agents. He took the money because he wanted it. And saying that an impoverished player (an easy mark) who "accepts" money knowingly is more excusable is like saying that economically-disadvantaged people who perpetrate crimes in poor neighborhoods are not as guilty of breaking the law because they "need the money!" That type of liberal rationalization has never served as sufficient justification.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I do think that USC is culpable here, too, and were sanctioned accordingly. But one responsible party doesn't nullify the accountability of other parties who also acted improperly.
The issue of steroids is a completely different matter. Scott seems to get caught up in the fact that Bush's handouts did not help him play better. But that is not the point. For the same reason Calvin Johnson's go-ahead TD was disallowed in Chicago last Sunday, KNOWINGLY breaking the law (okay, the rules) should still be punishable irrespective of whether or not a benefit is achieved. Just like Calvin Johnson knew better, Bush knew better, too, unless he's stupider than even I thought. The key word is "knowingly." It should represent the difference between what is or what is not considered libelous behavior. A fairly smart attorney told me that recently, but I forget his name!
One other thing that I failed to mention in my previous posting that I think warrants scrutiny. With Reggie Bush's return of an ill-gotten Heismann Trophy award, the University of Notre Dame has once again climbed to its usual perch as the school with the most Heismann winners in NCAA history. USC now must face the future with only 6 Heismann winners to Notre Dame's 7. Maybe some of Scottso's discontent stems from his Trojans trailing my Irish in yet another important category! Tough luck indeed, but we all know that "ties" are never welcome nor appreciated in sports, so maybe Bush's accolade just wasn't "meant to be." Go Fightin' Irish!
ReplyDeleteOK, Buckeyes fans. I need to clarify something I said the other day. My apologies to the Ohio State faithful for leaving you out of the Heismann Trophy conversation in my last posting. Yes, your school does indeed boast a Fightin' Irish tying 7 Heismanns in its history, but I did say "winners." And as every red-and-white loyalist from Columbus can attest to, only 6 Buckeyes have been awarded that illustrious honor, if only because the iconic Archie Griffin was a two-time Heismann Trophy recipient. Thus, the distinction between Notre Dame (7 separate winners) and Ohio State (7 total awards but 6 winners). But for those of you who bow toward the Horseshoe every Saturday morning in the fall, that's something for you to be extremely proud of! Even Notre Dame, with its unchallenged history and unparalleled legacy, cannot match that achievement. As a matter of fact, neither can any other school in the college football world. You have a little bit of important history yourselves, then.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet USC is still stuck on a paltry 6 awards (as well as only 6 winners). I guess that makes the Trojans a second runner-up, huh Scottso? Speaking of which, I haven't read anything lately on this blog from the Pride and Joy of Southern California. Is he out there on the West Coast, giving a "boost" to an inner-city football recruit for future Heismann aspirations?