It's 7:23 am and I am sitting on my couch feeding my daughter her morning bottle. This a ritual I perform the mornings I am off work. I am also watching Mike and Mike in the Morning, another ritual I usually perform while feeding my daughter. I like catching up on the recent sport stories and after one episode of Sports Center, I can't take it anymore. So I watch M&M who tend to have a broader, yet annoying, selection of sports information. Today's big topic is whether Reggie Bush should get to keep the Heisman Trophy he won in 2005. And should there be a "re-vote" for that year and should Bush be, or not to be, included in the "re-vote."
As we all know by now, Bush was deemed to have been ineligible, by the NCAA, for that season. USC has been given multiple penalties and sanctions for their upcoming seasons. Soooo What does everyone think? Big Mike "I know it all cuz I was a C average lineman in the NFL" Golic thinks he would "re-vote" for Bush because he was the best player that season. Mack Brown (Texas coach and National Champion) thinks Vince Young should get it cuz he was the runner up that year. Lou Holtz thinks they should vacate the trophy for that year and there would not be a winner. Mike "I am a dork and piss my pants around pro athletes" Greenberg" thinks they should "re-vote" without Bush on the list.
Personally, I agree with Lou Holtz. Bush tainted the season and it would be hard to go back 5 years and try to decide another Heisman Trophy winner. True, he may have been the best player that season but he, according to the NCAA, should not have been playing at all. So if you should not have been playing at all... how can you be the best player in college football that season. That would be like USC going 12-0 this season and the BCS letting them play in the National Championship game. They win it and are crowned National Champions even though they are suspended from any BCS games by the NCAA. Let's just give it to them cuz they are the best team regardless of the fact they are deemed ineligible.
The NFL last season even went one step further. They have rule that says you cannot use performance enhancing drugs. Brian Cushing, after winning the defensive rookie of year award, was found to have used PEDs while playing that season. The voters "re-voted" and still chose Cushing who was left on the list as a candidate. I guess the NFL, and the AP voters, are saying you can break the rules, be suspended, yet you are still eligible to win awards.
One thing I do know is that if I test positive for drugs in my profession... I get FIRED!!! If I am ruled ineligible to work for whatever reason.... I don't get paid.
Have a great day!!!
