Reggie Bush and the Heisman Trophy

I know my imaginary readers don't dwell in Southern California, if they did, I could complain to them out loud and I wouldn't need a blog to blow off steam. Anyway, is there anyone in the sports media who isn't dumber than Miss South Carolina?

Case in point, the non-stop disucssion about whether or not Reggie Bush should give back the Heisman Trophy, with which he was honored in 2005.

For those of you not awash in the details of this ridiculous story, Reggie's parents accepted some free transportation to his road games during the season when he won the Heisman, which is a violation of NCAA regulations. The NCAA has since discovered this violation and severely penalized USC by reducing their athletic scholarships and banning them from bowl eligibility for awhile.

It's a severe punishment, it has dampened the viability of the very popular USC football program, and lots of locals are really mad at Reggie Bush. Hence the question: Should he give back the Heisman?

What's that you say? You don't understand how the back story leads to that question? Exactly! It's ridiculous on multiple levels.

Here's an analogy: Once I wrote a paper that won an award given annually by some private group. I also violated the regulations of my Home Owners Association by using the pool late at night after it was closed. Should I give back the award I won for the paper?

The main source of my exasperation with this coverage is that the media seems not to understand the difference between the honor (winning the award) and the symbol of the honor (the actual trophy). It's not up to Reggie if he should retain or concede the honor; that decision rests with the Heisman Trophy Trust of New York City, for it is they who bestow the award each year.

If they strip him of the honor, his mere possession of the trophy would mean nothing. Conversely, if he gives the trophy back but they do not strip him of the honor, he will still be forever memorialized as the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner.