I’m no fan of USC, but the fact that he had to do this is ridiculous.
I don’t know what the answer is to the college star problem, and I’m generally in favor of institutions being held to a reasonable set of rules with respect to amateur status and whatnot as long as that’s the fiction we’re going to insist on in college sports. USC didn’t police its team well enough, and they’re paying the price. I’m fine with that.
I just don’t think it’s a good idea to penalize Bush personally for taking the opportunities he did. Will we pretend that there was no Heisman winner that year? Or that Vince Young was the winner? It looks like a temper tantrum by the club to me, a desire to try to hurt him now that he’s beyond the reach of any NCAA sanctions. That looks cheesy to me, and (in my view) makes the Downtown Athletic Club look worse than Bush.
Frankly, it astonishes me that so many are calling for even stricter rules, like lifetime NFL bans for people who do what Bush did. My guess is that, to a man, every person suggesting that kind of draconian sanction grew up with a shitload better financial situation than Bush. He was a standout, award-winning player, and was by popular consensus the best college player around in 2005. Even without the booster’s gifts, he’d have probably played at USC (he’s from San Diego). Did he use his status to benefit his family? It appears so. Did that meaningfully affect his school choice or performance? I doubt it.
College football isn’t amateur in any meaningful sense, not at the top-25 level, anyway. Colleges make millions on the backs of guys like Bush. I say leave him alone. Hounding him to give back this award and remove himself from the Heisman fraternity (a step they’ve not bothered to request of, say, O. J. Simpson) is just shitty.

