Stiff Armed!

In life you win some you lose some. A year after winning his first Super Bowl ring, Reggie Bush has lost his Heisman Trophy. After being found ineligible for the 2005 season and his former school, USC, losing scholarships and bowl game trips, the NCAA and others set their eyes on Reggie's Hiesman. Before the Hiesman Trust could vote or take action on what to do about this matter, Bush had decided to save them the trouble and return his trophy, becoming the first person in the 75 year history to ever to do so and leaving the 2005 Hiesman award vacated.

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!? Reggie, you basically said you did what everyone has accused you of by making this move. Then again...you may have brought this on yourself. Word is that the he was given goods from an agent with the intent that he would sign with that agent upon entering the NFL. Reggie did not do this so the agent wanted his money back. Reggie did not provide that money back to him, so the agent snitched. If this is the case, Reggie, you brought this on yourself. But thats just the word on the street.

But i'm not here to bash Reggie for this move, I want to know why this action was even considered by the NCAA and Hiesman Trust. Reggie was accused of taking money, gifts and what not, a direct violation of NCAA rules, and therefore deemed ineligible for that season, but why the Hiesman? This is an award that Bush won out right due to his athleticism displayed on the field. He didn't take steroids, performance enhancing drugs or anything else that would have given him an athletic advantage on the field. Yet, associations and others were demanding him to return an award that money had nothing to do with? So if I become valedictorian but took a few dollars from a TA to take my girl out, i'll be stripped of my valedictorian status, even though th money didn't effect my GPA?

I understand rules are rules and understand their reasoning for saying he should take back the Hiesman, but i don't agree with it at all! In 2005 Reggie Bush displayed dazzling moves, unmatched speed, an superb athleticism that led his team to the National Championship and him to be awarded the Nation's best player. And all that is trumped because he took a lil money to take a girl on a date (and his folks a crib, car, etc)?

Another issue here is why is he the only one guilty or being punished? What about the agent that was talking to him and offering him goods. Why doesn't he face any repercussion? What about the money the university gained from Bush's services that year? A lot of people say that we should pay athletes, making them less likely to commit these violations. Though I am against this move, I think that the other people involved should also be punished for their actions.

Here's a question I was asked that i'll ask ya'll, knowing the NCAA rules and regulations, is there anything morally wrong with Reggie taking money?

Til then... B easy!