Thank you Johnny Football

Albatross Necklace said:

---

Did he kill his wife and a waiter?

---

RIP Norm

AnimalA10 said:

---

agnerd said:

---

Guess I'm the only one that doesn't think he should get it back. He broke the rules, he knew he broke the rules, he decided it was worth the risk of getting caught, he got caught, and then thinks the consequences shouldn't apply to him.

I didn't meet the lofty GPA requirements of one of my college scholarships. I guess I need to start a PR campaign on how I DESERVE to have that scholarship money given to me even though I didn't hold up my end of the bargain.

---

This, slap in the face to all the athletes who did follow the rules.

---

Are you implying that all these athletes would have won the Heisman had they not "followed the rules" ?

I think reasonable people can debate whether the Heisman Trophy should have been taken away in the first place. However, I don't see how "massive changes in college football" are a valid argument on returning his Heisman Trophy. Changes to the rules in college football today are completely irrelevant to the rules that existed when Reggie Bush played. If they thought his violation was such that the trophy should have been taken away, then that should remain in effect. The logic does not make sense.

Why does Johnny Rodgers have one but Bush didn't?.

Clown world.

Did they bury OJ's with him?

I don't have an opinion on the original rules… but

If it's agreed that the original rules were wrong/illegal(antitrust)/whatever - the analogy might be that ….If a law that locked someone up is determined to be unjust years later they don't leave the guy locked up.

spherical said:

---

I don't have an opinion on the original rules… but

If it's agreed that the original rules were wrong/illegal(antitrust)/whatever - the analogy might be that ….If a law that locked someone up is determined to be unjust years later they don't leave the guy locked up.

---

In reality though, if you are convicted and sentenced for a crime that was illegal at the time you committed it, the change to the law has no bearing on the sentence. They do NOT let you out of jail or reduce your sentence. You stay locked up.

Happy for Reggie! He deserves his trophy.
That being said, let me remind you that there's been THOUSANDS of days in which #USC did absolutely NOTHING to help him get his Heisman back. https://t.co/7dmhEd7ON6

— JT The Brick (@JTTheBrick) April 24, 2024

All break the rules at some point. The difference is some feel superior and make excuses, while others accept the consequences and try to do better. Your decision.

TexAggie1999 said:

---

spherical said:

---

I don't have an opinion on the original rules… but

If it's agreed that the original rules were wrong/illegal(antitrust)/whatever - the analogy might be that ….If a law that locked someone up is determined to be unjust years later they don't leave the guy locked up.

---

In reality though, if you are convicted and sentenced for a crime that was illegal at the time you committed it, the change to the law has no bearing on the sentence. They do NOT let you out of jail or reduce your sentence. You stay locked up.

---

That doesn't make it right.

Know Your Enemy said:

---

AnimalA10 said:

---

agnerd said:

---

Guess I'm the only one that doesn't think he should get it back. He broke the rules, he knew he broke the rules, he decided it was worth the risk of getting caught, he got caught, and then thinks the consequences shouldn't apply to him.

I didn't meet the lofty GPA requirements of one of my college scholarships. I guess I need to start a PR campaign on how I DESERVE to have that scholarship money given to me even though I didn't hold up my end of the bargain.

---

This, slap in the face to all the athletes who did follow the rules.

---

Just because they didn't get caught doesn't mean they followed the rules. Are you guys really this dumb or are you trolling?

---

His statement was limited to the athletes who followed the rules. It didn't include the ones who didn't follow the rules but didn't get caught. I'd ask you the same question you asked us.

I just like it because it'll piss off VY. Been running around for years claiming he's "the REAL Heisman winner 2005". I hope this sticks in his rather prodigious gut. Remember him running around the interview table after the Rose Bowl game screaming about "who da Heisman now? WHO DA HEISMAN NOW?!!!" He cared more about that damn trophy than he did winning the championship. Hope he's hating this immensely.

Wonder what Honor Landry thinks of this?

Pete Rose for the HOF, while we are at it...

dixichkn said:

---

I just like it because it'll piss off VY. Been running around for years claiming he's "the REAL Heisman winner 2005". I hope this sticks in his rather prodigious gut. Remember him running around the interview table after the Rose Bowl game screaming about "who da Heisman now? WHO DA HEISMAN NOW?!!!" He cared more about that damn trophy than he did winning the championship. Hope he's hating this immensely.

Wonder what Honor Landry thinks of this?

---

I think Vince Young makes those statements because the Heisman was awarded before the National Championship game and he outplayed Reggie Bush in the National Championship. I don't think it has anything to do with Reggie Bush being stripped of the Heisman.

If they had transferred the Heisman to VY when it was stripped from Reggie Bush, then I would agree with you that this would be a big deal to him. However, they would not and did not do that, so this doesn't change anything in regards to Vince Young.

Saying "He cared more about that damn trophy than he did winning the championship" is a silly statement given his personal performance was the primary reason they won the championship. Hating on Vince Young is fine. Suggesting anything negative at all about to him in regards to the 2005 Championship is ridiculous.

Agree. You play by rules that exist at the time.

Ag_0112358132134 said:

---

agnerd said:

---

Guess I'm the only one that doesn't think he should get it back. He broke the rules, he knew he broke the rules, he decided it was worth the risk of getting caught, he got caught, and then thinks the consequences shouldn't apply to him.

I didn't meet the lofty GPA requirements of one of my college scholarships. I guess I need to start a PR campaign on how I DESERVE to have that scholarship money given to me even though I didn't hold up my end of the bargain.

---

If somebody in California smoked a joint and got put in state prison for five years, and California legalized marijuana one month after the five year prison sentence started, do you think that person should still serve the entire five years for something that is not illegal?

If a slave in the southern United States broke the law by running away in 1963 and was put in prison for life, and slavery was outlawed in 1964 (all of this actually happened by the way), do you think that person should still serve a life sentence in prison? He broke the rules, right? He knew the rules and decided it was worth the risk, and he got caught, right?

Hint: the only appropriate answer to these questions is "no." If your answer is anything other than "no" then you are bat **** crazy and there is no reasoning with you.

---

What about the northern slaves who were excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation? What if they ran away?

When will we get the 1994 SWC trophy now?

Ag_0112358132134 said:

---

Yeah, I got the dates wrong. There was a slave who received a life sentence the year before slavery was outlawed. The point stands.

---

I'm going to postulate that breaking NCAA rules and losing a trophy maybe aren't moral equivalents of slavery and life imprisonment, so the craziness that would follow from thinking the life imprisonment should stand after the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't directly translate to someone thinking Bush shouldn't automatically get his trophy back now that getting paid is no longer fully illegal.

GoldenGun00 said:

---

Ag_0112358132134 said:

---

Yeah, I got the dates wrong. There was a slave who received a life sentence the year before slavery was outlawed. The point stands.

---

I'm going to postulate that breaking NCAA rules and losing a trophy maybe aren't moral equivalents of slavery and life imprisonment, so the craziness that would follow from thinking the life imprisonment should stand after the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't directly translate to someone thinking Bush shouldn't automatically get his trophy back now that getting paid is no longer fully illegal.

---

They aren't moral equivalents, but they are logical equivalents.

Ag_0112358132134 said:

---

GoldenGun00 said:

---

Ag_0112358132134 said:

---

Yeah, I got the dates wrong. There was a slave who received a life sentence the year before slavery was outlawed. The point stands.

---

I'm going to postulate that breaking NCAA rules and losing a trophy maybe aren't moral equivalents of slavery and life imprisonment, so the craziness that would follow from thinking the life imprisonment should stand after the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't directly translate to someone thinking Bush shouldn't automatically get his trophy back now that getting paid is no longer fully illegal.

---

They aren't moral equivalents, but they are logical equivalents.

---

Sure they are, 1964.

Oh I realize he pretty much single handedly won that championship game for them. I also remember him sulking on the end of the bench at Kyle Field that year when, even after beating us to secure their spot in the BDFCG, he was pouting bc he had a pretty average day against us while Reggie Bush was tearing up whoever they played that day (UCLA I believe?) and he knew he had no chance at the trophy. Again, the trophy was bigger than the moment. That's why he went all crazy on Reggie after they won the natty.

Anyway, I'm glad Reggie got that trophy back. He earned it. Had an unbelievable season that year.