Reggie Bush said the NCAA will ‘absolutely’ reinstate the USC Trojans’ 2004 national championship. The former running back’s comments come less than two months after he was reinstated as the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner. Bush’s comments are merely a prediction, and the NCAA has not indicated that it will reinstate USC’s title. Considering the NCAA’s hard left on student athletes’ permissible benefits, such a move wouldn’t surprise me.
However, undoing vacated wins and player ineligibility is a big mistake.
Reggie Bush says that USC will “absolutely” get their 2004 National Title reinstated by the NCAA, following the return of his Heisman trophy 🏆
— College Football Report (@CFBRep) June 9, 2024
Thoughts? 🤯 pic.twitter.com/SaktbkYznF
If the NCAA reinstates the USC Trojans as 2004 national champions, then what?
The NCAA could potentially reinstate the USC Trojans’ final two wins from 2004, including the national championship game. The college athletics-sanctioning juggernaut has given no indication they will, but the possibility remains. If the NCAA places the 2004 national champions back into the record books, then what? How much more can and will the NCAA undo?
Fans must consider all the significant punishments issued by the NCAA as a result of impermissible benefits received by student-athletes.
Many will recall “Tattoogate,” a scandal that resulted in Ohio State losing wins, including the 2010 Big Ten championship and Sugar Bowl. The LSU Tigers lost 37 wins under former head coach Les Miles because of impermissible benefits associated with Vadal Alexander. Then, of course, is the “death penalty” issued to the SMU football program after the NCAA discovered Mustang boosters paid players. Is the NCAA prepared to reverse their once chartered course on all of the above?
Is it possible for the NCAA to undo the one-of-its-kind penalty that SMU never fully recovered from?
Of course, undoing a college football “death penalty” isn’t feasible. But what stops the Dallas-based university from making the demand if, hypothetically, the NCAA reinstates USC’s Bush-era wins? The potential for legal action from other affected parties, such as SMU, could significantly complicate the situation. Just imagine players or programs suing the NCAA for lost revenue during periods of sanction.
What is permissible now was not back when, so why should USC get their title back?
In 2021, the NCAA changed its policy to allow student-athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Thus, the benefits SMU players received in 1987 and Reggie Bush in 2004 would be legal today. Ohio State football players can exchange autographs for tattoos without the risk of losing eligibility. But what is allowed today was not permissible back when the NCAA handed out punishments.
I have a problem with the justification, ‘What is a rule now should have always been a rule…so I am no longer guilty.’ This argument, if accepted, could lead to a dangerous precedent of rewriting history. Reggie Bush did what he had to do to support his family back in 2004, but his actions were against the rules. I have no problem with student-athlete compensation in the current NIL structure, but nobody is within their right to rewrite history as a result.
An important distinction is that the Heisman Trophy is awarded by the Heisman Trust, not the NCAA. As such, Reggie Bush’s reinstatement as the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner was a decision made by the Trust. It’s also unique because the Trust historically aligns with NCAA rulings, hence their revocation of Bush’s award 14 years ago.
I would argue that the Heisman Trust was wrong to reinstate Bush as the 2005 winner. Call me old-fashioned, but breaking NCAA rules contradicts the Trust’s award candidate criteria. Their criteria state that candidates “must be in compliance with the bylaws defining an NCAA student-athlete.”
Make sure you visit Belly Up Sports daily and connect with me on Twitter/X. Also, check out the Third and Ten Podcast, available on all podcast formats.
Featured Image: Kirby Lee/Getty Images
