The Implications of Returning Reggie Bush’s Heisman

 

Reggie Bush: He’s baaaaaaack.

Former University of Southern California tailback Reggie Bush had his 2005 Heisman Trophy returned to him this week.  It had been “voluntarily” returned when it became clear that Bush had received improper payments to play at USC and therefore shouldn’t have had a college career at all.

The reaction to this reversal has been disquietingly positive.  Indeed, Curmie can’t find anyone other than Jack Marshall of Ethics Alarms (and some of his readers, including Curmie) who thinks this decision is a travesty.  All the talking heads on ESPN nod in agreement as insufferable blowhard Stephen A. Smith intones that the action was “long overdue.”  Various other sports sites generated pretty much the same responses.

Bah.  Humbug.

Reggie Bush was indeed an incredible college football player.  He was a logical choice to win the Heisman in 2005, and he did so over some rather stiff competition.  But that was before it was revealed that he and his family had accepted payments they were fully aware were contrary to NCAA rules.  We’re not talking about buying the kid an unauthorized pizza, here, Gentle Reader.  These were serious charges, and whatever Bush may say now about his innocence, it’s unlikely that USC would have put up so little resistance had they not been pretty certain that there was a fair amount of fire to accompany those flames.

It’s also true that the likelihood that Bush wasn’t the only Heisman winner to have broken NCAA rules approaches ontological certainty.  Curmie can think of at least three specific individuals whose guilt has been established to a degree that far exceeds “preponderance of evidence” and is very close to “beyond reasonable doubt” if it hasn’t crossed that threshold, as well.  That doesn’t matter.  It’s the equivalent of getting stopped for going 80 in a 55.  Complaining that other cars were going just as fast isn’t going to get you out of a ticket.  Were you speeding, and not just by a little bit?  Yes?  Then sit down and shut up.

Of course, Bush and USC have been lobbying to get this reversal for some time, and Bush himself staked a claim to a position in the Narcissist’s Hall of Fame by suing the NCAA for defamation for implying (not even saying outright) what virtually everyone believes to be true: that Bush was engaged in “pay-for-play arrangements.”  The statement also says that “Previous penalties, including those that are several years old, will not be re-evaluated or reconsidered based on the recent changes to NIL rules.”  (Yes, they lied.)

Of course, with the advent of NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals, pay-for-play is pretty much happening at every college or university with Division I athletic programs (and probably others, too).  What Bush did (okay, allegedly did) nearly two decades ago would almost certainly be permissible now.  That, coupled with a threat from the likes of 2012 Heisman recipient Johnny Manziel that he’d boycott future Heisman ceremonies until Bush’s award was reinstated, gave the movement some steam.  But seriously… when, exactly, did Manziel develop those “morals and values” he describes in his tweet (or whatever those things are called now)?

Here’s the thing: ex post facto works both ways.  You can’t be charged with a crime that wasn’t a crime when you did it, and you can’t avoid at least ethical responsibility for something that was illegal when you did it but might not be now.  The Heisman Trust’s action (which we can be assured was with the concurrence of the NCAA if not indeed at their behest) is not a pardon; it’s not an act of forgiveness.  It’s a denial of reality: Bush cheated and, unlike USC (which had to surrender scholarships and vacate victories, including the 2004 national championship and the entire 2005 season), is now effectively unpunished.

But this brings up another twist.  As of now, at least, Bush has his Heisman back, but USC still doesn’t have its national championship, which was stripped from them for one reason only: Reggie Bush played on that team.  

Curmie, having grown up in Central New York, became a fan of the local Division I team, the Syracuse Orangemen, in the 1970s.  Twentysomething years later, he enrolled in the PhD program at the University of Kansas, and he’s been a loyal Jayhawk ever since.  The NCAA has stripped victories from the basketball programs at both of those schools.  The Syracuse case involves more moving parts, but the KU case pretty much boils down to one thing: improper payments made to power forward Silvio DeSousa.  There are lots of twists and turns there, including the claim that the university was unaware of an Adidas rep’s shenanigans, but it’s not Curmie’s intention to re-adjudicate that case.  

What is significant, however, is that the NCAA invalidated 15 Kansas wins: the games in which DeSousa played before being retroactively ruled ineligible by the same organization that had previously declared him eligible.  As it happens, the Jayhawks had just recently passed the University of Kentucky to become the NCAA’s winningest team in history; the NCAA verdict put the Wildcats back on top. 

Does this really matter?  No, not really.  But it does put the NCAA in a bit of an ethical bind.  If the organization at the very least signed off on re-instating Bush’s Heisman because what he did is legal now, then the same argument should logically hold for the USC team on which he played, and for the Kansas basketball team.  (Perhaps the Syracuse team should be included, as well, although there were allegations in that case other than pay-to-play.) The list of other programs similarly affected is plenty long; no need to enumerate them all.  It should be noted that those teams have already paid a price in terms of scholarships, recruitment restrictions, and the simple fact that elite players want to be assured they’ll be seen in the post-season.

Of course, there are few organizations of any kind in the world as incompetent, corrupt, and whimsical as the NCAA.  How will they handle this situation?  Curmie’s guess is that they’ll do nothing… at least until someone else sues them.