Reggie Bush is one of the great college athletes of all-time, and his 2005 historic campaign duly ended with him being crowned the Heisman Trophy winner. He rushed his way to a National Championship bid and a year that was among the greatest in “SC” history. However, in 2010, the NCAA conducted an investigation that ultimately concluded in his records and Heisman Trophy being revoked. The punishment-happy NCAA determined that because Bush received financial compensation for his playing ability from boosters, he was, consequently, not eligible to win the Heisman Trophy.

The question to be asked is that if rescinding a trophy and pretending that all of Reggie Bush’s rushing yards never happened actually does anything to change Bush’s legacy. Can the NCAA honestly believe that anyone sees Reggie Bush’s tenure at USC any less successful just because a couple of lawyers determined that he had to give a trophy back? Making someone give a trophy back five years after the fact is like telling an actor to give back an Oscar because they were rude off the set. But I guess in this instance, the punishment does fit the crime, while Reggie did not really have to pay any real consequences, I have no problem with this because he really did not do anything wrong. The only issue is that the NCAA, per usual, spent time and resources dealing out punishments that made no substantial difference in the world. While USC was given a two year bowl ban and the loss of scholarships, none of the players or coaches who participated in the infractions were still there to pay the consequences.

This is not the only time the NCAA and other sports authorities have indulged themselves in menial punishments like this. The MLB has dealt with steroid users by putting an asterisk next to their name in the record book. I hate to compare the two things, because unlike receiving gifts from boosters, taking steroids is actually cheating. The dots being connected here are not between the offenses, but between the punishments given out by the league offices. Both administrations dealt out ineffective “punishments” and their lack of authority while dealing with the two issues are concerning. Nobody cares that Barry Bonds has a star next to his 762 home runs because it does not change the fact that 762 times Barry Bonds crushed the ball hard enough for it to go over the outfield wall, that 762 times that Barry Bonds crossed home plate after jogging the base paths, and that 762 times he left the opposing pitcher hanging their heads after making the costly mistake of giving Barry Bonds a hittable ball. This is not to say that Barry Bonds did not do something wrong, but the ambiguity of putting a star next to his name in the record book is concerning. Either he has the record, or he does not, and the MLB should have the fortitude to decide that for themselves and declare a clear record holder. After all, putting a star next to his name only makes the record stand out more, just like taking back Reggie Bush’s Heisman does nothing but make his already memorable season that much harder to forget.

To be fair, the NCAA felt obligated to act in some way because after all, Reggie Bush did technically break the rules. While the punishment was pointless and unnecessary, it could perhaps be just as dangerous to turn the other cheek.

Reggie Bush was the “main offender” for taking compensation during his time at USC, and it would be bad taste to punish everyone involved besides Bush. So while taking back the trophies may have not been the best move, it certainly was the easiest and simplest. The same is true with the MLB and their alleged steroid abusers, putting an asterisk next to the record provides a middle ground between completely ignoring the issue and removing Bonds from the record books entirely, even though the allegation has not been confirmed.