Reggie Bush Should Just Give Back The Heisman and Do One Thing Right

Allow me to say from the outset that I believe that the NCAA has way too much power, that collegiate athletes across the board are held to an incredibly unreasonable standard, and there are serious changes in order in regards to what sort of compensation that athletes should be able to receive in order to compete. The issues here not concerning what the rules should be, rather they concern what the rules are.

 Let's not mince words either. Bush's reckless disregard for the rules would have been infractions regardless of whatever other rule changes might take place. He received at least $290,000 in gifts and compensation through his family while playing college football. That's the issue at stake here, not how hard he worked, not how well he played. He cheated and got caught. 

Some will say that doesn't change what happened on the field. Such defenders miss an obvious point—he should never have been on the field in the first place, and the fact he was there changed everything for other programs. It changed who won games, it changed who won the conference, it changed who won bowls, and in one case it changed who the National Champion was.  Because he did it on the field doesn't mean it didn't change anything. It changed everything precisely because he was on the field. 

Such defenders will point to O.J. Simpson and argue that his actions which were far worse did not result in his losing the Heisman. This comparison is not logical though as it is equating what happened after the player played with what happened while  the player was playing. In a word, Simpson didn't lose his Heisman because he was eligible; Bush wasn't. 

Some have asked who the Heisman Committee "thinks they are" in even considering taking away the award. My answer to them is they are the Heisman Committee, the precise and only entity which can do this. This isn't some notion of a body extending itself beyond its measure. The award is the Heisman Committee's to bestow or remove as it sees fit. They have to answer to no one, it's their award. My question to those critics is who do you think you are telling the Heisman Committee what they can and cant' do with their award. 

Some will argue that there are several Heisman winners coming out in support of Reggie Bush. That's well and good but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Reggie Bush was not an eligible player, and you have to be an eligible player to receive the award. There's no ambiguity here. There's no opinion poll, and there's no more credit for being a recipient yourself. Reggie cheated. He got caught. What else is there to discuss?

Some suggest that other schools are guilty of the same things. Other schools also get penalized for those things. If those people have actual evidence of other Heisman winners who were ineligible based on rules violations, let them come forward with that information, and let those winners be stripped as well. However, this broad sweeping "poisoning of the well" defense is nothing more than an excuse. Bush gets no reprieve for being a cheater simply because others cheated. It's still cheating. 

Some will argue that Reggie Bush is being made "the fall guy" by USC. I won't disagree with that sentiment. I think that USC trying to distance itself from Bush is abhorrent, and that they too should take responsibility for what they did. This should include vacating voluntarily the National Championship issued to them by the AP. Yes, they won those games, but they wouldn't have won the National Championship or been in the game had the fact that they had an ineligible player on the field be known. It is accepted that USC was aware of these violations and did nothing about it. They can do something about it now. Still, USC's wrongdoing doesn't reprieve Bush of his own wrongdoing. There are no "plea-bargains" here. 

Still others have claimed that he was not performing against professional athletes, that he was still performing against college athletes. Who he was competing against isn't the issue, it's who they were competing against. They were competing against a well paid (were you making 72,500 a year as a college student?) professional athlete. That compensation allowed him certain freedoms that his opponents were not able to enjoy. It is not competing against professional athletes that makes you a professional athlete, it's getting paid to be an athlete that makes you a professional athlete. 

And let there be no mistake about this. This isn't some sort of Jim Thorpe scenario where an obscure situation for an insignificant amount of money has enacted a technicality to incur. This isn't even A.J. Green selling his jersey and getting suspended four games. This is a player, over the entire course of his time at USC recklessly and belligerently flaunting the rules and getting enormous compensation.

Furthermore, in the aftermath Bush has made it sound as though these things were actions that happened to him, or around him, but has not given any remorse for actions which have been performed by him. He claims he doesn't want to think about it because he is carrying "a city on his back." And people make LeBron James out to be a narcissist? Bush's view of his "martyrdom" only exacerbate the problem. He claims he wants to put this "behind him" but he hasn't yet put in front of him. 

All the things that Reggie Bush is saying indicate that he wants to be perceived as having matured and grown beyond that kid who took that money and those gifts, and is now carrying cities around on his back. Until he actually carries his own history on his back though, he can't carry anything except a ball. If he wants to be perceived as having grown and matured then the best thing for him to do is to grow and mature. The best way for him to do that is for him to relieve the Heisman committee of having to take this action and with a full confession and apology, return it of his own volition first.