Reggie Bush finally gets back the Heisman Trophy he never should have lost

Please, your disdain for the brothers ain’t gon’ change the numbers… 

— Jay-Z, “Some People Hate” (2002)

Just days after the holiday in 2005, The Boondocks aired its landmark episode, A Huey Freeman Christmas. In the classic bit, Riley Freeman pens a letter to Santa Claus demanding the fictional, seasonal character “pay what you owe.” Coincidentally, earlier that same month, former USC tailback Reggie Bush was awarded the Heisman Trophy.

Bush, who went on to become an NFL star and TV broadcaster, forfeited his award in 2010 after an NCAA investigation found that he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars while in college. The NCAA hit USC with sanctions, including stripping the Trojans of the 2004 national championship and 14 wins that Bush played in. Bush giving back the Heisman, in hindsight, was a response to unjust and harsh treatment by the NCAA, which robbed him of well-deserved recognition that bookmarked one of the genuinely iconic college football portfolios.

On Wednesday, after nearly a decade and a half, Bush was reinstated with the same trophy he was forced to vacate in a move the trust said resulted from, as reported by Pete Thamel of ESPN, “enormous changes in the college football landscape.” The decision overturns a pathetic college ruling in a previous college sports ecosystem that is becoming increasingly archaic.

It also reopens wounds that college sports will never truly escape, especially given the current landscape of athletes being able to be compensated for their name, image and likeness. This decision is another crucial step in addressing the long-standing issues of athlete compensation and the need for reform in college sports.

First, there’s the toll the decision had on Bush. Whether or not one believes Bush’s 2005 Heisman ultimately belonged to then-Texas quarterback Vince Young, who finished second in the voting, is one entry point of discourse. The two would meet in the greatest college football game ever played in the 2006 Rose Bowl, with Young’s Longhorns winning in dramatic fashion. During a 2020 appearance on The Pat McAfee Show, Bush revealed that Young turned down the opportunity to retroactively be awarded the Heisman.

“Vince showed me love that even some of the closest people to me didn’t even show,” Bush said of Young’s refusal. “Sometimes I get chills on my back because [Vince] had every right to say, ‘Yeah, gimme that Heisman.’ And he didn’t.”

What’s undeniable, however, is Bush remains a singular college dynamo. During a decade where one Bush saw his approval ratings plummet, Reggie Bush experienced the opposite. He was Bob Ross with pigskin, the Anthony Bourdain of college cutbacks, what Ricky from Boyz In The Hood was supposed to become. He stands as one of four non-quarterback Heisman honorees since 2000 and was a legitimate threat to score every time he touched the football. He didn’t create the term “must-see TV,” but Bush undoubtedly helped propel it. The possibilities with a football in Bush’s hands in the mid-2000s were endless. He scored rushing, receiving and returning — and to the chagrin of Notre Dame fans, by pushing.

None of that mattered in the summer of 2010 when a NCAA investigation found that Bush — in particular, his family — accepted illegal benefits while in college. The verdict was harsh and would haunt Bush, the Heisman and college football. Bush, by then a Super Bowl champion with the New Orleans Saints, was labeled the pariah. He cheated and, in turn, sullied one of the great eras in USC football, or so the punishment stated at the time.

What was known then, and even more so now, is that Bush did no wrong. He never sought payment for his talent — which he should have, in hindsight. Those “benefits” came knocking on his door. Bush brought millions to USC and even more to college football. Yet, he was vilified when he accepted any compensation for his talents.

Many — including 2012 Heisman winner Johnny Manziel — have been Bush’s loudest supporters for years. The argument for and against Bush has largely remained the same. He was an amateur athlete, so any revenue stream was explicitly outlawed. But on the same accord, how can a singular body of talent who generated hundreds of millions for the same institution that benefited from his presence be prohibited from any payment he rightfully deserved? The devil was in the details the NCAA openly avoided and refused to address — and still does.

Secondly, and most important, comes the weight of this week’s decision. It is, indeed, an incredible gesture. Bush was unfairly labeled a villain in a landscape where the actual antagonist not only hid in plain sight, it profited – and still essentially profits – from a horrifically one-sided business model that made sinners of those who created the product and saints of those who unabashedly benefited from capitalizing on a sport spearheaded largely by Black bodies.

Make no mistake about Bush’s Heisman reinstatement, too. This is a Heisman Trust decision, not an NCAA one. Just last month, the NCAA denied Bush’s attempt to reconsider the magnitude of the penalties levied against USC. Wednesday’s decision by the trust has been in the works for several years. Given the rapidly evolving NIL landscape, the decision gained momentum in recent years and appeared inevitable. Bush’s defamation lawsuit against the NCAA, according to Sportico, is still very much in play.

The trust should be commended for its decision, not celebrated. Bush was never the shady figure he was publicly shamed to be. College athletes, like Bush, were shamed for accepting benefits and ruining the alleged moral fiber of a system that never operated on anything aside from its own self-interest and billion-dollar bottom line. They were painted as perpetrators when they were always victims of a predatory system of mass consumption and entertainment. Yet, it’s the names of those who lured these young men and their families who were seldom dragged through the coals like the athletes they prey upon. Nevertheless, the trust ultimately made the right decision, even if it was nearly two decades late. Bush will, at long last, be allowed to celebrate the career that changed college football.

Expecting the NCAA to take the high road has proven an exercise in futility. Acknowledging its mistreatment of Bush is far too expensive. Doing so requires the NCAA to reckon with how many lives have been altered at best — shattered, at worst — throughout generations, all in the name of “amateur athletics.” It would require accountability from a body that never had to genuinely police itself when it came to compensating a workforce it claimed for decades should be happy with a “free” college education.

Reggie Bush is but one name. A prominent name, to be fair, but one of thousands the NCAA prohibited from exploring the limits of self-marketability and how that could have changed the scope of families’ futures. This gross imbalance of power and access further indicates the need for reform in college sports and the NCAA’s mistreatment of athletes, a cause that should resonate with those interested in social justice issues far beyond sports.

Famed boxer Muhammad Ali once said his Thrilla in Manilla fight with Joe Frazier was the closest he ever felt to death. Though not an apples-to-apples comparison, Bush called the decision to strip him of the Heisman in 2010 the closest he felt to death without dying. Bush still had a noteworthy NFL career and found success calling the game in retirement. Yet and still, he was always the guy who had his Heisman taken from him for a “crime” college football openly encouraged as long as one side benefitted and the other stayed quiet. He was a cautionary tale that even the game’s greatest talents weren’t immune from the game’s ugliest power grabs.

Much remains to be addressed regarding the NCAA, NIL, and whatever an “equal” playing field resembles. There will likely never be a day when college sports finds equality. That requires sacrifice, and sacrifice means relinquishing power.

Bush’s Heisman reinstatement is a small step forward, but it is nonetheless a step forward.