Some thoughts on Nebraska and the latest fallout from NCAA investigations

[kstatehater]

Which throws out a perception- true or not- that if you are a superstar you can get away with much much more than if you are a average player.

 

[Enhance]

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.

You don't punish someone by letting them keep a prize they won under illicit circumstances. Bush wasn't a victim here - he knew he was getting illegal benefits. What is it about Reggie Bush that makes you think he should get to keep the trophy? Why not strip the wins and championships? I'm all for that, too. They cheated, and they should e punished. But this tangent about USC making Bush the fall guy... USC didn't receive illicit benefits, Reggie Bush did. Bush's actions were a direct violation; USC benefited indirectly. If anyone should be punished first, it's Bush. Personally, I think they should both be punished.

And no, Bush wasn't the best player in college football that year, Vince Young was. Bush was the most popular player on the most popular team, that's all. Vince was the better player, and proved it on the field.

I understand your first part there, but what does it get you? You take away the award, but everybody knows he still won it and a lot of people still think he was the best player that year. Why not keep the award as a reminder to never do what he did again? Sure, take down all the memorials and things gratifying him, but keeping the trophy (at least in my eyes) shows that you have acceptance of what happened and you are moving forward. Getting rid of the Heisman and striking his name from USC lore doesn't do much, because everybody is still going to remember who he is and what he accomplished on the football field. That's my biggest problem with it.

I agree that Bush should be punished in one form or another, but he's essentially untouchable at this point from what I've been hearing at least.

And even though I respect your opinion knapplc, I think that both Young and Bush are still equally deserving of the Heisman. I think they both had stellar seasons and you really can't go wrong with either one. Bush's benefits taint him, yes, but he was still a great player imho.

 

[knapplc]

I understand your first part there, but what does it get you? You take away the award, but everybody knows he still won it and a lot of people still think he was the best player that year. Why not keep the award as a reminder to never do what he did again? Sure, take down all the memorials and things gratifying him, but keeping the trophy (at least in my eyes) shows that you have acceptance of what happened and you are moving forward. Getting rid of the Heisman and striking his name from USC lore doesn't do much, because everybody is still going to remember who he is and what he accomplished on the football field. That's my biggest problem with it.

I agree that Bush should be punished in one form or another, but he's essentially untouchable at this point from what I've been hearing at least.

And even though I respect your opinion knapplc, I think that both Young and Bush are still equally deserving of the Heisman. I think they both had stellar seasons and you really can't go wrong with either one. Bush's benefits taint him, yes, but he was still a great player imho.

Essentially what you're saying is that we should let Bernie Madoff keep the billions he swindled as a reminder of what he did wrong. I don't think that's the best way to punish a wrongdoer. He's not untouchable - if the Heisman Committee does the right thing and revokes his trophy. If they don't, they'll solidify themselves as a bogus award.

 

[whateveritis1224]

The way I see it is that while Reggie did something wrong, he still produced on the field and he didn't use any performance enhancing drugs.

He screwed up, but in the big picture of things, what he did wasn't too bad. He received money and benefits, exactly how did that alter his performances on the football field? The NCAA didn't void any of their victories that year did they? So those games still happened.

Just use the whole situation as a warning for the future, and it seems like the NCAA has already taken it to heart with the looking into of Florida and Alabama.

 

[mnhusker]

Whatever benefits he received, they didn't make him a physically gifted athlete.

Yes they did.

It is a really interesting thing to wrap your head around, but check out the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. It is an eye-opening analysis of what makes someone successful or gifted - and it is not so clear or obvious as you would think. In short, in our culture we like to think that being really good at something means that we have a natural talent or hard work or some long-winded lifted-up-by-my-own-bootstraps story, but in the overwhelming majority of the extremely successful people, natural talent and hard work have far less to do with their success than less obvious but extremely important aspects and opportunities of their life.

 

[mnhusker]

I second the Outliers book .... good book and interesting insight on atheletics although that is not the main point of the book.

 

[Enhance]

I understand your first part there, but what does it get you? You take away the award, but everybody knows he still won it and a lot of people still think he was the best player that year. Why not keep the award as a reminder to never do what he did again? Sure, take down all the memorials and things gratifying him, but keeping the trophy (at least in my eyes) shows that you have acceptance of what happened and you are moving forward. Getting rid of the Heisman and striking his name from USC lore doesn't do much, because everybody is still going to remember who he is and what he accomplished on the football field. That's my biggest problem with it.

I agree that Bush should be punished in one form or another, but he's essentially untouchable at this point from what I've been hearing at least.

And even though I respect your opinion knapplc, I think that both Young and Bush are still equally deserving of the Heisman. I think they both had stellar seasons and you really can't go wrong with either one. Bush's benefits taint him, yes, but he was still a great player imho.

Essentially what you're saying is that we should let Bernie Madoff keep the billions he swindled as a reminder of what he did wrong. I don't think that's the best way to punish a wrongdoer. He's not untouchable - if the Heisman Committee does the right thing and revokes his trophy. If they don't, they'll solidify themselves as a bogus award.

The Heisman is already a bogus award, and most people would agree I think. They don't need any help there.

I still think he was a great player and just as deserving of the Heisman as Young was. But, like I said, my biggest problem with it is that USC should not pretend Bush never existed by simply disowning him and removing his accomplishments from USC lore. Fine, get rid of the trophy, but don't pretend he never existed. Use it as a stepping stone rather than a skeleton in the closet imho.

And Manhattan, while I respect your opinion and will look into this book, it is grossly unfair to automatically say "yes they did" in reference to the benefits Bush received helping him be a great player. This is one writers opinion, and should in no way shape or form be used as an overall barometer for the success of others. At the very least, we should agree that it "could or could not" have helped him.

 

[n.e.husker]

Been a while since ive been on here. Just heard on sportscenter Georgia is being investigated by the NCAA.

I think thats 4 SEC schools.

 

[deedsker15]

Been a while since ive been on here. Just heard on sportscenter Georgia is being investigated by the NCAA.

I think thats 4 SEC schools.

imagine that... <_<

 

[irafreak]

S.E.C! S.E.C! S.E.C! chuckleshuffle

 

[junior4949]

Saban has a point, but the NCAA has no authority over the agents. It would probably have to be each state's attorney general taking action.

The NCAA has no authority over agents, but the NFL and players union does. What he said is that the NCAA and the NFL need to come to an understanding that if an agent costs a player eligibility or does something in violation of the NCAA that the said agent loses his license for a year or two. Considering the code of conduct policy the NFL has adopted, I would think this would be a no brainer. If you're going to hold your athletes up to a certain code of conduct, the agents that represent them should be held up to a certain code of conduct as well.

 

[knapplc]

Saban has a point, but the NCAA has no authority over the agents. It would probably have to be each state's attorney general taking action.

The NCAA has no authority over agents, but the NFL and players union does. What he said is that the NCAA and the NFL need to come to an understanding that if an agent costs a player eligibility or does something in violation of the NCAA that the said agent loses his license for a year or two. Considering the code of conduct policy the NFL has adopted, I would think this would be a no brainer. If you're going to hold your athletes up to a certain code of conduct, the agents that represent them should be held up to a certain code of conduct as well.

Yep, I read that too.

 

[sd'sker]

Been a while since ive been on here. Just heard on sportscenter Georgia is being investigated by the NCAA.

I think thats 4 SEC schools.

imagine that... <_<

is it time? SouthEastern Cheaters. not the most clever, but it works.

also, the SEC needs to investigate the SEC.

 

[NUance]

I imagine a lot of schools across the nation are starting to get nervous, especially in the ACC/SEC region.

Right now, with the NCAA wielding all these sanctions, it’s kinda like Al Capone’s team speech scene from “The Untouchables.” Capone is walking around the giant dinner table carrying a baseball bat. And everybody at the table is a little bit nervous about who’s gonna get it.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

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.

You don't punish someone by letting them keep a prize they won under illicit circumstances. Bush wasn't a victim here - he knew he was getting illegal benefits. What is it about Reggie Bush that makes you think he should get to keep the trophy? Why not strip the wins and championships? I'm all for that, too. They cheated, and they should e punished. But this tangent about USC making Bush the fall guy... USC didn't receive illicit benefits, Reggie Bush did. Bush's actions were a direct violation; USC benefited indirectly. If anyone should be punished first, it's Bush. Personally, I think they should both be punished.

And no, Bush wasn't the best player in college football that year, Vince Young was. Bush was the most popular player on the most popular team, that's all. Vince was the better player, and proved it on the field.

Southern Cal benefited way more than whatever paltry sum Bush received from the the agents, see the thread on top earners in CFB. They knowingly and intentionally allowed illegal money to flow to their players because it got them back on top of totem pole.