Executive Order 2005: Bush Forfeits Heisman Trophy

Yesterday, former USC running back Reggie Bush forfeited his 2005 Heisman Trophy. The unprecedented move comes on the heels of years of NCAA investigation and speculation regarding Bush's receipt of improper benefits from agents. Today, the Heisman Trust announced that it will leave the 2005 award vacant and it will not give the award to that season's runner-up, former Texas Longhorns quarterback Vince Young. Here's my take on the various moving parts of this event...

Bush Did the Right Thing

After its investigation, the NCAA laid down the hammer on USC and its football program. And this past off-season, USC underwent the biggest makeover in its storied history:  Legendary coach Pete Carroll resigned; the school fired highly-controversial athletic director Mike Garrett; and the athletic department removed all symbols of Bush from campus, including the school's copy of the Heisman Trophy, jerseys, and banners. Amidst all this, Bush remained unchanged. Whenever a reporter approached him regarding the controversy, he stuck to his guns and stood by his innocence. He never admitted any wrongdoing and he never offered USC and its fans an apology. In fact, he basically swept everything under the rug. Until yesterday.

By giving back the Heisman Trophy, Bush takes the first step on the road to recovery. He enables the NCAA, the Heisman Trust, USC, himself, and even the Saints, to move on. To be frank, I don't think his image/legacy is fully recoverable (more on this later). But for now, returning the trophy is a good start. Up next, how about an apology?

Bush's Image is Irreparable

Sports fans, for the most part, are forgiving. But only when an apology is involved. Bush has yet to admit any wrongdoing, and even though his Heisman Trophy forfeiture may imply his guilt, it does not quite measure up to a true apology.

There has been some discussion over how this scandal affects Bush's chances at induction into the College Football Hall of Fame. Personally, I think his chances are slim to none. While I recognize that his on-field accomplishments warrant induction, it is too easy for voters to pick on a player's blemishes. Furthermore, Bush is now a villain, and he played for a team that much of the country dislikes. I could easily see voters rally against him. Even if you try to separate character issues from performance, one could argue that Bush simply should not have been on the field during that season and thus should not have compiled those numbers and highlights. He is the poster-child of an era when college athletes are often connected to receiving improper benefits from agents and boosters, and I doubt voters want that cloud hovering over the Hall of Fame.

2005 Heisman Trophy Should Remain Vacated

I completely agree with the Heisman Trust's decision to leave the '05 award vacant. Some people speculated that the Trust would re-award the trophy to that season's runner-up, Vince Young. Mack Brown, Texas' head coach, even publicly lobbied for that decision. But in the end, the Trust decided that they were too far removed from that season to render a sound decision. And I'm glad that they felt that way. I don't want to take anything away from Vince Young because he had a great season capped by a magical performance against Bush and USC in the Rose Bowl. But if you take Bush out of the equation, don't you think Matt Leinart would have received a lot of those votes? I remember that season a lot of people thought Leinart and Bush would take votes away from each other, well where is all that discussion now? You cannot simply assume that Young would have risen to the top.

Also, if you are Vince Young, would you even want that trophy now? Imagine displaying the trophy in your living room and knowing that the only reason why you won was because Bush gave it back to repair his image. Not only that, but I think a lot of the prestige of the trophy comes from the actual award ceremony. Every trophy winner in the modern era has video/pictures of them receiving the trophy with a huge smile and then delivering an acceptance speech. They have the opportunity to shake hands with the other fraternity members and officially join the club. Vince did none of that. And now that we are five years removed from that season and Vince is in the pros, does anyone even care about that year's award? I know I don't. I would love to hear the opinion of a rational Texas fan.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Heisman Trophy Trust announces that 2005 award will remain vacated (sports.espn.go.com)
• Reggie Bush will forfeit his 2005 Heisman Trophy (sportsillustrated.cnn.com)

How to Stop Agent-Athlete Corruption in College Athletics

Image via Wikipedia

After the NCAA Infractions Committee body-slammed USC's football program for its "lack of institutional control" in its handling of former star running back Reggie Bush, Trojan fans immediately wondered why the NCAA chose to punish its beloved team, current players, and new coaches for the crimes allegedly committed during a previous regime. In essence, why should current players, such as starting quarterback Matt Barkley, be banned from postseason play when they had absolutely no relationship with the Bush-led teams of the past? The answer is simple - because when a scandal like this breaks loose, the NCAA wants to punish someone, but that someone needs to be within NCAA jurisdiction. Once Bush entered the NFL Draft and signed with the New Orleans Saints, he lost his status as an amateur athlete (Translation:  Bush no longer "belonged" to the NCAA). And Lloyd Lake, the independent sports agent who allegedly tampered with Bush and Bush's family, has as much accountability to the NCAA as Ronnie does to Sammi on MTV's "Jersey Shore" (For those of you unfamiliar with the show…zero). Thus, by process of elimination, who could the NCAA have spanked for this "egregious" oversight? USC. The NCAA had to punish the Trojans because the Trojans were the only participant in this scandal that fell under the NCAA's reach. And while I blame the NCAA for being reckless in the severity of its punishment, I do not blame them for reprimanding the school in general because it was the only recourse offered to the NCAA in our flawed athletic system.

In the current system, the lack of collaboration between the NCAA and professional sports leagues, especially the National Football League and the National Basketball Association, enables athletes and sports agents to violate the rules of amateurism, reap the benefits of those violations, and avoid the consequences of their actions. Let's take a look at an example of how the system allows itself to be abused. And because I hate to beat a dead horse (the Bush scandal), let's examine the events surrounding Marcus Camby's impropriety during his time on the University of Massachusetts basketball team.

As an All-American at UMass, every agent sought to recruit center Marcus Camby in hopes of bringing in a healthy commission on Camby's inevitable payday. Two particular agents, John Lounsbury and Wesley Spears, gave recruitment a whole new meaning. Lounsbury estimated that he gave Camby more than $40,000 in cash and gifts over a two year period. Lounsbury bought stereo equipment and took out rental cars for the prized college recruit. Meanwhile, Spears took it one step further; in addition to funneling cash to Camby, Spears bought the star expensive jewelry and even procured prostitutes with whom Camby slept. Furthermore, both agents showered Camby's friends and family with gifts, praise, and support in hopes of getting deeper into Camby's circle (For a more detailed account of the Camby scandal, read this great article by Sports Illustrated's Phil Taylor).

While I do not condone these actions, I acknowledge the temptations that athletes and agents face, especially considering how easy it is to escape persecution. Camby did not come from a well-to-do background and admittedly used his talents to leverage financial security. If, for just one second, we remove ourselves from our own lives/situations and try to imagine growing up in Camby's shoes, or Bush's shoes, perhaps we can see what these athletes dealt saw. Camby had an opportunity to live a lifestyle he had only dreamt of, and if executed correctly, he could do so without penalty. And that's exactly what Camby did. On the court, he set individual records, won player of the year awards, and led his team to the Final Four. Off the court, he took the money, jewelry, cars, and women and lived like no other student in the country. And when all was said and done, he was drafted, received a huge signing bonus, and collected much more in his NBA career. But here's the catch:  He did so at no cost to himself. Sure, the NCAA eventually nullified the Minutemen's visit to the Final Four, but who did that hurt more, the program or Camby? Well, since Camby's departure, UMass has only made the NCAA tournament twice in thirteen years. Meanwhile, Camby has had a moderately successful 14-year career highlighted by winning Defensive Player of the Year in 2007 and his current $9.15 million/year contract. I would say Camby came out ahead.

As for the agents involved, both have since left the sports representation business. However, had they wanted to remain in it, they would have been able to do so. Agents simply are not punished for providing benefits to college players. In fact, according to Jack Bechta, in this article, plenty of high-profile agents provide benefits to players but the NFL Players Association is hesitant to discipline them because those are the same agents that represent them! So, if agents can discreetly provide improper benefits to college athletes then later remain certified by professional leagues, why would they stop?

The solution to this ubiquitous problem is a coordinated, proactive effort by both the NCAA and the NBA/NFL. Here are some policies they should enact:

1.  Ban the Agents

Any current, certified NBA/NFL agent found to be providing a collegiate athlete with improper benefits should be decertified and banned from future representation in that league. Simple. And if you are an aspiring agent who is discovered to be providing improper benefits to a college player, then you should be banned from even applying for professional certification by the NBA/NFL. If the agents are truly the bad apples in all of this, as coaches seem to think, then they should be kept out of the leagues for good. Do not reward agents who tamper with college athletes!

2.  Jeopardize the Athletes

Any collegiate athlete found to be receiving improper benefits from an agent should be immediately kicked off his athletic team, banned from future participation in NCAA athletics at any level, and prevented from entering the NFL/NBA Draft (Although they can enter the league through free agency). The reason why kids make these decisions is because they know that their futures cannot be jeopardized, only the short-term (For instance, they lose one year of playing eligibility). By kicking them off the team, banning them from NCAA athletics, and forbidding them from entering the NFL/NBA Draft, you send a clear message that should athletes decide to receive improper benefits, they directly harm their own futures. If an athlete can no longer play his sport, he cannot showcase his talent. If he cannot showcase his talent, he will not be a prized possession. If he is not a prized possession, the chances of receiving a big payday is slim; not to mention, if you cannot enter the Draft, you will not collect the huge signing bonuses automatically given to high picks). These kids need to understand that stupid decisions in the present will have drastic ramifications in the future. After all, isn't that true in every other walk of life? Why are athletics any different?

3.  Hire the Family/Friends

The NCAA and the NBA/NFL should PAY the parents/friends of high-profile college athletes to serve as informants (aka snitches) to help crackdown on renegade agents. Ah, the icing on the cake! The biggest problem in these scandals is patrolling the athletes' friends and families, right? After all, USC could have done everything in its power to keep Bush away from agents (on-campus housing, closed practices, etc.) but could it have policed Bush's parents miles away from campus? It's a helpless cause. So, then, if you can't beat them, join them! Team up with the parents, secretly, to weed out the rogue agents! And make sure to pay parents/friends on a commission-basis to encourage proactive snitching! This is brilliant.

Ultimately, I don't know if the system will ever be immune to agent-athlete corruption. But as of today, the system leaves itself astonishingly vulnerable. Hopefully, policymakers will see the light and realize that the only way to limit the corruption is to implement regulations like the three that I provide above.