That's your opinion and you're entitled to it which is even more reason this whole flack about the award is just stupid, like I said it is simply who is liked more by the voters. Whether he was the best player or not is disputable and not fact. I actually expect heavy bias on this board due to the fact that it is Texas-based.
This really doesn't matter we all know who won that year so its pretty dumb for them to want to take it back. Yea I know what he did but come on its been 5 years let it go and move on.
LOL. So, the deserving Heisman winner - with ANOTHER Heisman winner alongside him at quarterback and the majority of a defending national championship team to back him up - couldn't beat a less deserving, less valuable player? Something doesn't quite add up.
If it was awarded based on what you did on the field instead of highlight splices in a Connecticut studio, Vince would already have it.
Eli Manning's QB rating ranking in 2007 season: 25 out of 33 qualified Vince Young's QB rating ranking in 2005: 3 out of 115 qualified Not to mention that Young (obviously) brought a substantial amount of value rushing as well, whereas Eli does not. So yes, comparing Eli Manning's full 2007 season to Vince Young's full 2005 college season... is about the stupidest analogy you can possibly make.
Stupid is as stupid does - the logic for Bush were the 90-second highlight clips put together by his promotional team (and by that I mean ESPN). At least the logic I posted involves a full, actual game. If you'd like, I definitely don't mind making the common sense, actual case for Young being the most outstanding college football player of 2005. Also, I love that you called me out for "horrible logic" in my discussion with RoxSquad, while ignoring the fact that he never made any case at all for Bush. To use your own phrase - homer much?
<br> Actually, It was just about as stupid as your initial post that he replied to. By your logic, Kobe should have been MVP last season, not LeBron. But that's not the point. Being a Texas homer aside, in the history books it will always say "2005 Heisman Winner - Reggie Bush*" *Bush forfeit the Heisman trophy in 2010 blah blah blah <br> Bush deserved the Heisman enough back then to win it. It's a lame award, but don't b**** about it just because VY didn't get it. He won a national championship and basically did the whole state proud by sticking it to USC. Le
I'm not comparing Eli's season to Vince's..... You said this.... Tom Brady couldn't beat the less deserving, less valuable player.....so that means he didn't deserve the MVP? You obviously a bitter UT fan.
Uh, what history book is this - your own? The Heisman records will not show Reggie Bush as the winner in any way, shape or form. Sorry.
No, my implication was that after a season of being an incredibly dominant player and leading Texas to an undefeated season, he went out and continued his play in the national championship game, proving his value relative to Bush/Leinart by backing up the things he was already doing all season long. I thought that implication would be well understood. Perhaps I was wrong on that. And yes, you're damn right I'm bitter, after watching Vince dominate the landscape of college football that year from start to finish, only to watch the glitz of Los Angeles and ESPN highlight specials overshadow him until January 4.
<br> Are you seriously that delusional? I couldn't care any less about USC or UT football. It is what it is. The FACT is that he won the award. I don't know what logic you're trying to use to disprove that, but it's not working. Sorry. Btw, I don't have a problem with a legitimate argument for Vince Young winning the Heisman. I just thought your logic on that post about Bush winning the Heisman yet losing to an "inferior" team was flawed.
I won't deny the fact that Young had a remarkable year then too but you guys saying Bush was all highlight clips is just wrong. He had some damn good numbers himself. You disregarding that just proves the bias that is present. It was some horrible logic. Where did RoxSquad say that Bush deserved the Heisman because he couldn't win a certain game? A game that comes after the damn award is given out at that? He didn't, you made that bad analogy. Me a homer? I don't give a rat's ass about either player to be honest, like I said all the drama over the stupid thing is, well stupid. I'll just say this. Vince Young didn't win the award. Get over it! What is gained by Vince Young winning the award now? What is gained by taking it away from Reggie Bush? Absolutely nothing.
