Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Yep. He knew it then, and he was right.
Reggie Bush was a phenomenal college player. He just wasn't the best college player that year. Vince Young won more games by his lonesome. Reggie Bush was more or less the icing on the cake for USC, like if you parked a Ferrari on an aircraft carrier. Sure it's pretty sweet, but all in all pretty superfluous.
Win a game for us, Vince.
The reason I say this (other than how true it is), is that I'm trying to get a sense of why the Heisman committee did this. Talking with Stovall, he calmed me down and made me think rationally.
USC always had this huge media focus that entire season. Remember the month-long fellatio session that ESPN put on, putting out poll after poll showing that America believed the 2005 Southern Cal team to be better than every other championship team ever? Man, that was silly.
So maybe the intense media focus that they basked in is to blame. Could it be that playing under a microscope contributed to Reggie getting stripped of his Heisman? Probably. The NCAA has a long history of hypocrisy and idiocy. They've been on a rampage as of late, and probably felt like in addition to going after entire programs, they probably should spank one individual, and he was the one that they thought of first. Because he was their darling little chipmunk, yes he was.
They said that he "tarnished the reputation of the Heisman trophy." Do they know who they've been giving that trophy to? Not everybody can be Tim Tebow, you know. I'm just assuming here, but I'm willing to bet boosters did something for Tebow. Just a thought.
But then again, maybe they realized they made a huge-ass mistake, and would do anything to make it right. That's probably it.
Play us off real classy-like, Vince.