The saga of the 2005-2006 USC football season continues. Even when Pete Carroll (perhaps smartly so) removes himself from the troubled spotlight, the sporting universe still has to hear about the Trojans whom guard The Coliseum of Los Angeles County. At least this time, it won’t be ESPN touting their immortal status, but rather news reports that makes us – the non-Trojan faithful – all feel good about the athletic department’s impending doom.
As the NCAA continues to investigate violations of the USC football program, and Reggie Bush’s tenure in Los Angeles continues to be scrutinized, there has been a lot of debate about whether or not Bush deserves the Heisman Trophy he walked away with that year over Heisman runner-up Texas QB Vince Young.
If USC is made to forfeit their wins for the 2005-2006 season, does Reggie Bush still deserve the Heisman Trophy? In addition to that, if it’s determined that Bush was given monies by multiple sports agents, is he worthy of being given an award that is (or should be) about more than acrobatic flips in to end zones? What about philanthropy, good standing, academics, etc. that should encompass the characterisitcs of someone worthy of that elite title – Heisman Trophy winner.
Eyes Of TX would think any individual that is a committed team player would much rather have the national championship trophy (see also: Young) than an individual award like the Heisman, but there is no doubt in this blogger’s mind that Young deserves both for 2005-2006 season. Especially in light of USC and Bush’s apparent trangressions. Personally, Eyes Of TX will be wearing their “R.I.P. USC” eye blacks until Young gets what is rightfully his.
To use the revised voting options highlighted by reporter Tom Shatel of the Omaha World-Herald, where would you lean?