I might be in the minority with this opinion, but I don't see how stripping Bush's Heisman does anything for you. Sure, the "university" doesn't deserve it, but Reggie Bush does at the very least. Whatever benefits he received, they didn't make him a physically gifted athlete.
Stripping Bush of the Heisman makes perfect sense. Would Bush have gone to USC without the illegal perks he got? Without the team surrounding him at USC, does he perform half as well as he did?
There are Heisman-worthy players all over the country, but since many of them play on weaker teams, they don't stand out as much. Bush stood out because he was on a team of all-stars, a team that may not have been put together without those impermissible benefits.
Taking away his Heisman also sends a message to other top-tier athletes that there are consequences for violating NCAA rules. You don't get to take the illegal perks without losing your benefits.
Or, you keep the Heisman at USC and use it as a reminder to never do what this kid did.
The problem I see with this is that EVERYBODY still knows who Reggie Bush is, and they will continue to know who he is for a very long time. If you're going to strip the Heisman, why not strip the wins and the championships? It seems like USC is making Bush a fall guy for their mistakes, rather than making everybody responsible for the mistakes as a collective whole. Plus, if you're going to strip the Heisman, then why not take away the revenue that he supplied the school? IMHO, taking away the Heisman doesn't change anything and it makes Bush out to be the fall guy, when the university itself isn't innocent.
Distancing themselves from Bush doesn't change the fact that he was still the best player in college football that year. If you strip the Heisman, then strip everything else you benefited from as a university. Don't just take away a Heisman so you feel better about yourselves.