The fact is that Bush did not win the award for "the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." He wasn't a legitimate college football player and he lacked integrity. Neither did Floyd Landis win the 2006 Tour de France even though he finished first. The 2006 Tour de France was won by Óscar Pereiro because he did not cheat. Ben Johnson did not win the 100 meter dash in the 1998 Olympics even though he finished first. Carl Lewis won because he didn't cheat. Vince Young deserves the Heisman because not only was he the the best player in college football that year, but also because he didn't cheat. This is not the same thing as having the USC championship forfeited and not naming a championship for that year... there are too many variables for that, including the fact that Auburn was undefeated. The Heisman is simple: it's either Vince or nobody.
You don't think a lot of variables go into the selection of the Heisman? You think that voting on it today would be identical to voting on it back in 2005? The Heisman is probably the dumbest award in sports because of how intangible and subjective the award actually is. A revote would be a bad idea. The moment has passed, it can never be remade. Let it go.
Reggie was awesome that season. When he won the Heisman I was not mad at all, he deserved it based on his production to that point. The national championship game was not played yet. The national championship game could have been different had he not made that stupid mistake trying to lateral the ball which caused a fumble.
wait...i'm sorry...are there actually people in here arguing over this nonsense? Is someone actually in a debate about who should have won the heisman 5 years ago? Spoiler
As someone pointed out, I think they vote and/or give the award prior to MNC game. His preformance would have changed peoples views after the fact. Who's to say all those that voted for Bush would not have voted for Leinart prior to the Championship game.
Agreed. Remember when Michigan played in the Final Four in 1992/1993? Or when Chris Webber played for them? NOPE that got erased from the books. Sanctions that happen retroactively get things erased from history books period. Memories and stories remain but officially it never happened.
I don't think this is the same as the examples you listed. Reggie Bush didn't use PEDs to enhance his performance in 2005. And it isn't clear cut, if Bush was ineligible in 2005, there is no guarantee that his first place votes would have automatically went to Vince Young. I thought Vince Young should have won it in 2005 but I'm surprised what a big deal this whole thing has been made out to be.
if vince would have the same season he had in a USC uniform he would won the award. thats the stupid part
Bush cheated. Maybe not quite like the others, but he cheated nonetheless and his cheating made him ineligible for the title, just like the others. The delay in this is because he and his family covered up and stonewalled for years. It's a big deal because this was not a year where a mediocre player won over over a mediocre field. This was a year where the Heisman folks totally missed a transcendent player and awarded a good player with excellent hype. They now have a legitimate opportunity to right that wrong.
eh...I think people who work hard to provide consumers with a quality product should be both adequately and proportionally compensated.
pretty much its ridiculously how much espn slurps usc i mean LSU won the BCS the year carroll complained over and over about not being in the game even though USC signed off on the BCS to make them 'co-national' champions. i am not a fan of the BCS but if you agree to the BCS contract you cant cry about it when it doesnt favor you. it went to a point where people actually believe that USC was national champs in 2004 and not LSU. as for an individual award like this the apology is fake as it can be and its stupid everyone knows he was caught and he had to return it. I really dont care if it goes to VY, personally if he had the second most votes that year then it should go to him. Much like how olympic medals get presented to the other athletes if a medal winner is found cheating. so much time has passed though i am not sure if it would mean as much to Young right now as it would have back 5 years ago. Personally I think it should be a step further: if a value could be assessed to how much extra money Bush was able to make as a pro because of winning the heisman (contracts, endorsements etc) then that figure should be paid back to the teams/sponsors as well or that same figure should be donated to a charity of the NCAA/Heisman's choice
No.. as in most people who care about college football and the Heisman will always remember the controversy surrounding Reggie and USC regardless if he had forfeited it or not.
