Heisman Trophy Voters are Two-Faced
Some Heisman Trophy voters are arguing that Reggie Bush's Heisman Trophy should be taken back if the forthcoming NCAA pronouncement against Southern California declares him ineligible. The rationale for this, says one voter, is that "it's absolutely okay to charge every winner with upholding the honor of this award their entire lives."
I have three words for the Heisman hypocrites: Orenthal James Simpson.
Go 'Dawgs!
about 2 years ago
T Kyle King
6 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Come on Kyle...
Big difference…the question is was Reggie Bush eligible when he won the award? OJ was well out of CFB when he committed his crimes…
Even as a big USC homer even I couldn’t argue if the award was stripped from Bush.
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
I understand that distinction . . .
. . . but, clearly, that’s not the point this imbecile is making. He says “it’s absolutely okay to charge every winner with upholding the honor of this award their entire lives.” He isn’t imposing any time limitations, and he’s even emphasizing the responsibility to continue earning the award long after playing college football.
It’s supposed to go to “the most outstanding player in college football.” There’s not a word about eligibility anywhere in there. Eligible or not, Bush was playing college football in 2005. As we learned in the Rose Bowl, he wasn’t the most outstanding player, either, but that didn’t stop them from giving him the award.
That’s my point. This is a bogus award with no credibility left, and for a voter to claim now that there’s some amorphous, hitherto-unenunciated responsibility to uphold the honor of this joke of a trophy is laughable. Does anyone who isn’t a self-styled “pundit” for the award even take this thing seriously anymore? These guys need to get off their high horse.
Go 'Dawgs!
I don't disagree with your premise...
These guys need to get off their high horse especially clowns like the insufferable Peter King but I am fairly certain that there are rules in place that specifically in regards to eligibility…
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Perhaps . . .
. . . but it’s my understanding that Heisman Trophy voters are mailed ballots that tell them to vote for “the most outstanding player in college football.” Eligibility surely is presumed, but I don’t know that it’s explicitly required. Besides, how are they to determine that sort of thing? The guy suited up and played; shouldn’t that be enough? Who are they to impose some sort of lifelong obligation? It’s just arrogance.
Go 'Dawgs!
Would this not be comparable to vacating wins/titles/etc?...
Omitting the above argument on Heisman winners upholding the honor for their entire lives bullshiiiii, would stripping Bush of the Heisman not have precedent in the form of football teams vacating wins for using ineligible players as Georgia Tech and Florida St have had to do in recent years, or Michigan vacating their Final Four from the Chris Webber days, or UMass and Memphis vacating their Final Four runs from Calipari and Camby/Rose?
Again, not including that foolish argument on the Heisman as a lifetime achievement award, would the above examples on vacating past performances as penalty for using ineligible players not be applicable? Plus, Vince Young deserved it more anyway.
That's a valid point.
The only distinction I would draw is that vacating wins and taking down Final Four banners involve being stripped of victories in NCAA-sanctioned events for violations of NCAA rules. The Heisman Trophy is given out by a private organization that is not bound by NCAA regulations. They could choose to comply with those rules, but it’s a separate organization.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on May 14, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
