Started By
Message
re: Reggie Bush is getting his Heisman Back
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:46 am to pankReb
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:46 am to pankReb
quote:
The SMU scandal was a direct pay-for-play.
SMU would have utilized NIL to purchase players. Just like programs are doing now.
Reggie Bush was given improper benefits and stripped of his trophy. USC was hit with sanctions. We can all see now that Bush’s Heisman was rightfully given back because his “infraction” wouldn’t hold up with new rules influenced by the courts.
Your argument is nothing more than being pedantic. If we can retroactively repair an infraction because the new rules no longer apply, we should do so for all who have been damaged by an unconstitutional rule.
Thus supporting:
quote:
When a rule has been deemed "unconstitutional", it really nullifies said rule.
This post was edited on 4/24/24 at 10:47 am
1
Posted on 4/24/24 at 2:37 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:
SMU would have utilized NIL to purchase players.
But they didn’t. They pay-for-played. It doesn’t matter what they “would have done”. It only matters what they did.
And what they did was pay-for-play.
quote:
Reggie Bush was given improper benefits and stripped of his trophy.
The benefits were from marketing agents looking to represent him. You are correct in that this falls under NIL and is the reason why he is being given his trophy back. That, once again, is not pay-for-play.
quote:
Your argument is nothing more than being pedantic. If we can retroactively repair an infraction because the new rules no longer apply, we should do so for all who have been damaged by an unconstitutional rule.
And your argument is dogshit because you can’t understand the fact that pay-for-play is not legal under NIL rules. Thus, SMU has no leg to stand on because what they did is still against current rules.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News