gruden, jaworski defend reggie bush...stay classy espn

That's what the leader guy of the Trust said on TV. Apparently, it's written that way on the rules for voting, which ever voter gets each year.

I'm pretty sure in order to be eligible for the Heisman, the player must be eligible according to the NCAA as well.

 

I'm asking this question not to be a douchebag, but because I genuinely don't know: Was Chris Weinke considered an amateur athlete when he won?

 

In football.

You can be a pro in baseball but not in football.

 

If they vacate Reggie's "Push," does Charlie Weis get his job back?

 

Chris Weinke was also considered a good football player when he won it; people get shit wrong all the time.

 

Sonnet, was USC directly paying him? No?
Then he's an amateur by common sense standards. If I go to Gap to buy clothes and I give some hapless gent advice and he pays me, it doesn't make me a pro fashion consultant.
Everyone gets all high and mighty about amateurism. It's for the best college football player. You know how I know? Because a high school kid has never won it.

 

Again, to be eligible for the Heisman, you have to be eligible according to the NCAA rules, not rules of common sense or whatever other rules you'd like to invoke.

Honestly, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. Not saying everyone should agree with the rule, but it's not hard to figure out the premise of the rule. At all.

 

I'd agree with most of what you say, except that there are virtues of amateurism when athletes play sports for fun and the competition. And that's what college sports are supposed to be about.

However, the whole amateurism argument goes out the window when there is money involved and when people make a living off the amateurs. Then it becomes a business, which is why the NCAA is scared stiff that someday, the players will be considered school employees.

 

I didn't read the entire thread and plenty of people have probably posted this...Who would like to bet that since 1965 more Heisman winners have taken "gifts" than have not?