Todays Guest Post is brought to you by Clair Wyant. Clair Wyant is a sports fan, a former sports reporter for the Tucson Citizen newspaper, currently a foreign exchange professional. Originally from Arizona, but has been a Red Sox fan since day one. Clair’s loyalties go towards Boston Red Sox, New England Patriots, and University of Arizona, with college basketball & NFL his favorite leagues. Clair has previously lived in LA, London, and has lived in Boston past 5 years. Clair can be found on twitter @ClairWyant.
Reggie Bush has been in the spotlight, again, over the past few weeks. The NCAA Heisman Trust decided that he may have to give up his 2005 Heisman Trophy. YAHOO! Sports reported that the Heisman Trust will revoke Reggie's 2005 trophy, a report the Trust has denied.
All of this is from the fall out that Bush accepted money and gifts during his time at USC, resulting in four year's probation and a two year bowl ban for the Trojans. Revoking the prestigious trophy from an award winner is something that has never occurred. When asked about the situation, Bush stated that the matter was "out of his hands": “If I’m not mistaken, I believe the Heisman Trust people released a statement saying whatever was (reported) yesterday was inaccurate, so that’s where we’re at”.
There are two conclusions that come to mind:
· Reggie Bush should not be forced to give up the trophy. It was awarded for what he did on the field, not off. That cannot and will not be revoked. It was his superior performance on the field that led to the off the field issues.
· Regardless of ones opinion, the NCAA's rules are the rules. They are in place and must be followed. They need to find a way to enforce these rules before and during a player’s time in a college program. As ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski brought up, the NCAA has layers of bureaucracy with rules that are “confusing, redundant, outdated, maddeningly impractical or just plain stupid”. After all, it was the media that uncovered Bush was receiving gifts and money. Making the rules simpler and up-to-date may not have avoided this situation. Reducing the layers of bureaucracy will provide a big step forward to cracking down with agents, money, and other common violations (I respectfully disagree with Gene in that area, he says it will not). After all, if the rules were simpler and more up-to-date, will the layers of bureaucracy be needed (not that it is needed now)?
Thanks to the Tennessee Journalist for the photo of the Heisman Trophy.